Saturday, July 24, 2010

The False Rape Society? Isn't that also called Social places where white het men gather, to discuss their sexual conquests of women of all colors--using coercion, force, or alcohol and drugs--but who never, ever commit rape?

[image of book cover is from here]

[This post was revised later on 24 July 2010, with a partial list of WOC blogs added, and text added by me in bold and in brackets.]

When I think about the problem of men falsely accused of rape, one story leaps to mind: the story written about, magnificently and movingly, by white Southern writer Harper Lee, in her classic book, which was published 50 years ago this year--less than a couple of weeks ago--titled To Kill A Mockingbird.

There's a Southern white woman allegedly named Connie Chastain, and she's no Harper Lee in the social justice or writing departments--for those who haven't seen the movie or read the novel recently, Ms. Lee, a white Southern woman, described the climate and culture of violence of white men in the South, and who is victimised by them: namely, everyone else.

Connie, however, seems to think there's a significant social problem with white men (and women) being falsely accused of rape. This significant social problem apparently merits the formation of an online resource, primarily for men and the mothers of falsely accused boys, called "The False Rape Society". Her blog focuses its supportive lens on white men falsely accused of raping white women, and the token woman of color.

Has she noticed there's a different problem in the South--as well as the North, the East, and the West? That of white men raping white women, and white men raping women of all colors, and Black men raping Black women? And men tending to rape the women of their own ethnic and cultural group, except for the wealthier white het guys... who roam the Earth raping wherever they go? I know she knows about the intersection of race and gender problems in the South: she's read To Kill A Mockingbird and does list it as one of her favorite books.

She's just done a post about yours truly; she identifies what someone has decided are the "Top Ten Feminist Blogs", which she admits to not visiting. Note: more or less, they are ALL basically white-dominated feminist blogs. She doesn't seek out the opinions of women of color who have feminist or womanist blogs on the problem of rape. What's up with that? This shows a lack of regard for the experiences of rape faced by women of color (and also by white women) who have an analysis of men's violence against women. Connie was just checking the list that she came across. But, isn't she capable of going beyond the list to, say, the blogs of women of color? The answer is "yes", she is capable of going beyond the list, but "no", she isn't going to arrive at any WOC blogs. She does, however, arrive at my blog. Why, because I'm not a woman? Typical antifeminist practice--ignoring women's voices, especially ignoring the voices of WOC and going right to one of the very few males who has a feminist view on men's violence against women and related atrocities.

Why ignore the blogs of feminist women of color, you might ask? Because, it appears, the only woman of color she cares to highlight, to focus her attention on, with a photo and all, is a Black woman who she identifies as "The Duke Liar"--the woman who WAS abused--verbally, physically, and sexually--by a gang of white frat guys. (The abuse was in the ridiculing of her, the taunting of her, the remarks that they wanted a white woman, not her; the ways they degraded her humanity by treating her as a thing to be used, paid for, and cast out like a rag. The abuse was in their disgusting remarks, and their physical touching, as if she was "theirs". Even without rape, there was plenty of sexual abuse by that white gang of men that night. And if you believe they've been non-misogynist saints before and since, I've got some oily sea water to sell ya in the Gulf of Mexico.)

This white woman, Connie--and I do wonder if she is a woman, honestly--shows her racism against Black women in several ways. Later on in her post, below, she mentions a white feminist blogger who doesn't much like me because I once called her out on being racist to women of color to whom I am an activist ally. (The whites--of whatever gender--generally don't like being called out on racism, with a few notable exceptions.)

She also doesn't seem to notice that I identify as an intergender male, not as a man. (It is a tad confusing, as "male" and "man" are often used interchangeably, even here at A.R.P.; and I personally and politically support men and males being identified in ways that women wish and need to do for women's safety and resistance efforts). The only group of people Connie Chastain seems to go to actively support are privileged white men who might, or might not, be rapists. (How, honestly, can she know?)

Connie wrote a novel called Southern Man, about someone who is falsely accused of sexual harassment--do you think he's Black man falsely accused of harassing a white woman? Nope. He's a class-privileged white guy.

Here's a blurb about her book:
A family man is targeted with a false sexual harassment complaint by an amoral young woman and her uber-feminist mentor. 

In case Connie's antifeminism wasn't apparent, that blurb sure clears up where she stands. Could the 'family man' be amoral?? Naaah.

She mentions below, in citing "the problem" that she discovered that the two percent false rape charge rate wasn't accurate according to her own work and findings. What percent is false, "Connie"? You fail to note that. Why? (As found generally, that false report rate is generally stable at 2% to 8% percent, which means the non-false report rate is always at 92% to 98%. Think about that. And how many of those 92% to 98% of correctly accused men--the men who are rapists--see a courtroom, or prison terms? Not a whole helluva lot. And what percent of raped women get defended? Not a whole helluva lot. None of the raped women I know have someone like Connie doing up a blog about The True Rape Society. Apparently injustice only counts as such when it happens to white guys.

Coming up shortly, from The False Rape Society, is her explanation for its need. Then comes her latest post, on me and my blog, not on blogs by women of color, including but not limited to:
An Arab Woman Blues, Anishinaabekwe, AROOO (A Room Of Our Own)Aunt Jemima's Revenge, Celie's Revenge, Code Red, Diary of An Anxious Black Woman, Eternal Summer of the Black Feminist Mind, Guerilla Mama Medicine, Journal de la Reyna, Mariposa Tales, masterwordsmith-unplugged, Racialicious, Standupsistah, The Angry Black Woman, The Crunk Feminist Collective, The Feminist Texican, That Girl Has Issues., The Kitchen Table, What About Our Daughters, and last but not least, Womanist Musings

There are so many blogs by WOC that I seriously wonder how far out of her way Connie has to go to purposefully avoid reading any of them. Given the list you'll see below, I now feel like this blog post is at least a BIT more balanced.

She also ignores one of my all-time favorite white feminist blogs, by a woman who VERY responsibly focuses on the reality of rape (and the truth about "false rape claims"); that blog is called Abyss2Hope. I'll bet Connie won't go near THAT blog EVER--it's got way too much information about men's rape cultures. It would shake the very foundation of Connie's blog, and political focus.

There's a lot of "reality" Connie seems to intentionally avoid. Because we know those class-privileged white het men need all our support and attention and all. Lorde knows they don't get enough from one another!

Well, they're not getting all of it. And that's not a sign of hate, Connie. It's only a sign that I pick different battles. You want to be sure that around 5% of falsely accused men are not faced with prison terms. And I want to see rape by the approximately 95% of men who do have raped when accused, stop doing it, and to get all men to stop other men from committing rape. My focus is also on Indigenous people's rights, and rights of the Earth. Does that mean I also hate everyone who isn't Indigenous, and every form of life that isn't "the Earth"? Do you get, yet, the illogic of drawing a conclusion that someone fighting to end an atrocity hates the perps? Might I actually--are you sitting down?--love women and justice for women? Can WHM supremacists and the women who defend their callous and selfish actions even imagine such a thing!! (Wait: you mean someone can LOVE women, focus on women, or focus on how and when and where men are oppressive, and not HATE men???? I know: what a concept!)

Anyway, reader, below Connie's post are some comments posted to that F.R.S. blog, and included there is one from some dolt (I think that's the right term--I'm using "dolt" in the most positive sense) named Michael Waters, who goes out of his way to find some old comment by "v" that was posted here once upon a time. Because apparently he couldn't quote me, the host, who writes most of what is on this blog (well, that isn't cross-posted). This is how the MRA-trolls' bullshit goes: Michael quotes a commenter as a representative of my voice, rather than, oh, say, quoting me directly. And then MRA-trolls can pick up that post, and use it over and over again to make their same silly points. This is typcical of how MRAs and their defenders misrepresent feminist or profeminist points of view, for their own biased and bigoted agendas which are pro-patriarchal and racist--at least. (See *here* for much more on that strategy.)

I do offer a comment to her and to Michael, at the end, which was posted to that blog she moderates.

Now, what follows next is her own introductory material from The False Rape Society blog, and after than is the latest post to that blog, which mentions me, which is really silly--who the hell am I? Doesn't she have some serial, gang, marital, or date rapists to spend time criticising? She concludes I'm basically insane. So, Connie: why bother writing about me then? (Shrugs shoulders and shakes head.) I don't offer commentary on the introductory material, but I do put commentary, in bold and in brackets, among her comments in the blog post about my blog and moi.

Why this blog [The False Rape Society]

The Problem:  
This Web site was started by an attorney in the United States to help raise awareness about the serious and largely ignored problem of false rape claims. Every objective study ever conducted on this subject reveals that false rape claims are a significant problem. But despite the grievous harm often suffered by the falsely accused, their unique needs are rarely acknowledged, much less addressed.

As a society, we permit the reputations of persons falsely accused of sex crimes to be destroyed by even baseless accusations of a lone accuser; we permit the presumptively innocent, who too often turn out to be falsely accused, to be arrested and jailed on even far-fetched claims, with bail set sufficiently high to insure they won't be released before trial; and we excuse false accusers with little or no punishment, inviting others to falsely accuse with impunity and without deterrent.

The unique needs of the falsely accused are ignored because the entire rape milieu has become unnecessarily gender-politicized, and the persons who dominate the public discourse about rape apparently believe that acknowledging the false rape problem would somehow hamper the war on rape.

By any measure, denigrating the experience of the wrongly accused by dismissing them as a myth or as unworthy of our discussion, and regarding the victimization of our daughters as somehow more worthy of our protection than the victimization of our sons, is not merely dishonest but morally grotesque.

My Involvement: 
I became interested in this subject in a roundabout way. As a lifelong liberal and strong supporter of equal rights for women, I had accepted the feminist insistence that only two percent of all rape claims are false. I felt assured by it, gladdened that the progressive forces of feminism were not running roughshod over the innocent of my gender as they led the war on rape. One day, I became involved in a peculiar case involving a false rape claim, and my research led me to studies conducted by persons without a political agenda. To my astonishment, I found that the two percent claim was not correct. False rape claims, in fact, comprise a much greater percentage of all rape claims. I began to understand that false rape claim victims had peculiar needs, unique needs, and that their suffering was being ignored because the entire field had become so terribly politicized. To my even greater astonishment, I learned that things that are untrue are repeated as fact with cult-like repetition to "prove" that rape is rampant and that women don't lie about it. The truth, I learned, wasn't nearly as important as this ideological agenda. It saddened me, then it puzzled me, then it angered me, that few seemed concerned that this agenda is hurting innocent people who are regarded as nothing more than collateral damage in the "more important" war on rape.

I also found that in case after case involving false rape claims, judges bemoan the harm done to actual rape victims by the lies. The credibility of every rape victim is reduced with every rape lie. I began to seriously wonder why the persons who dominate the public discourse about rape insist on sticking their heads in the sand and do nothing to help reduce the prevalence of false rape claims since false rape claims indisputably hurt rape victims. I soon figured out that any other course of conduct would be inconsistent with their ideological stance that allows neither for nuance nor for any admission that males in significant numbers can be victimized by the actions of women.

I decided to write an article about what I'd found, and to monitor false rape claims in the news. I also decided to put the news stories I collected into a blog in case anyone else was interested in this subject. This blog is the result of that effort. My article has turned into a book, which I am now writing, and the blog that nobody read has acquired a zealous readership.

I am still no less a strong supporter of equal rights for women. But I part company with what I believe is a small but powerful cabal of ideologues that not only is disinterested in helping victims of false rape claims but that mocks the very suggestion that this is a subject worthy of discussion.

Along the way, in a peculiar way, our blog has become a champion to enhance the credibility of rape victims because we seek to reduce the false rape claim epidemic. We have been surprised by the number of rape victims who support our work precisely because false accusations make achieving justice for actual rapes all the more difficult.

Women and False Claims: 
The subtitle of our blog includes women among those affected by false rape claims because the affect of false rape claims on women is an indisputable fact. Although men have a monopoly on being falsely accused of rape, some women, especially school teachers, are also falsely accused, and they have the same needs as men and boys who are falsely accused. In addition, vast numbers of women are otherwise affected by false rape claims: mothers, wives, daughters, fiances, girlfriends, sisters, aunts, friends, and employees of the falsely accused. False rape claims simply don't happen in a vacuum. While they primarily affect the victims falsely accused, it cannot be denied that they also can destroy the victim's loved ones -- many of whom are women. We have received more supportive email from mothers of young men falsely accused than any other group. It should come as no surprise that they are uniformly outraged by society's mistreatment of the presumptively innocent charged with rape, who too often turn out to have been falsely accused.

Given the affect of false rape claims on women, I wanted to find some way to acknowledge their stake in the battle. I decided to put out a "welcome sign" for women to let them know that we acknowledge their pain, and that their voices are welcome here. To insist that false rape claims are simply a "men's" issue is to ignore reality and to become no better than those who claim men can't understand the pain of rape victims. We have no such gender divisive agenda here.

Friday, July 23, 2010
Rape Culture 101 -- Journey to the Dark Side [If you haven't yet, please note how often whites use the word "dark" to mean "negative"]

by Connie Chastain*

I mentioned in my first FRS essay that tracking down the origins of rape culture would comprise research for future essays. [By infusing it with a something called 'the truth about men who rape'.]

I must confess, though, that I'm far less interested in researching the origins of rape culture, [this surprises me not at all] which I don't even believe exists, [!!!!!!] and more interested examining the primary motivation behind the claims for it, the same one that fuels feminism -- hatred of men. [No, Connie. What fuels feminism and discussion of rape culture is men's rape of women, and other things men do to enforce male supremacy and social, political, economic, and sexual dominance.]

Toward this end, I recently went through the web in search of feminist sites and blogs to help with my research. To my delight, I found much of my work already done for me.

Take Part, Inspiration to Action, , a website that encourages activism on left of center issues, has a list of "Top Ten Feminist Blogs," some of which the readers of The False Rape Sociey are no doubt familiar with.

The list was compiled two years ago by Bostonian Giulia Rozzi, who does not identify the criteria she used to choose these particular blogs, which is understandable when you think about it. Whim seems as acceptable a rationale for much feminist decision-making as objective standards do. [I'd say "white" not "whim" was one of her criteria.]

In any case, whatever Rozzi's criteria, the Top Ten Femnist Blogs are (if you're interested):

1. Feministing -

2. Feministe -

3. Our Bodies Our Blog -

4. Jezebel -

5. Broadsheet (part of -

6. Finally Feminism 101 -

7. Women in Media & News Blog -

8. Holla Back NYC -

9. MediaGirl - 

10. Bitch Magazine -

I haven't visited all of these blogs. In fact, I've hardly visited any of them to date. See, I have a really low threshold for feminist BS and can only take small, measured exposures to it at any given time. [But if she's never visiting any of them to date, how does she know there's BS there?! She must be psychic.] But I will visit them, looking for what they say about rape culture, and what they probably won't say, but may otherwise reveal, about the man-hatred that underlies such claims, for future essays, as promised. [And I can predict what Connie will say, and won't say, about male rapists and the endemic problem of sexual violence against women, by men.]

Rozzi follows up her list with an acknowledgement that there are many more "fabulous female-focused blogs out there." [Like ones by women of color!!]

Imagine my surprise, then, when I discovered, quite by accident, that one of the most viscerally male-hating blogs I have ever encountered is run by ... a man. (Or so the blogger claims.) [Actually, the blogger DOESN'T. "The blogger" says I'm a gay male who is intergender. But that's easily misunderstood. So let's move on.] I'm speaking of "A Radical Profeminist." [Cue the "Jaws" theme music...]

The blog's banner sez, "This blog exists to challenge white heterosexual male supremacy as an institutionalized ideology and a systematized set of practices which are misogynistic, heterosexist, racist, genocidal, and ecocidal." [Cue the loud shrieking and dashing about in all directions...]

Oh, goody. Sounds like I've come to the right place. [A place that takes multiple forms of oppression seriously??? THAT kind of place??] Anybody who has something to say about so many subjects based on man-hating and male-bashing [or not] will surely have comments on claims of rape culture and false rape accusations. [See, here we go again. I couldn't possibly be writing any of this stuff on "rape culture" because there's a RAPE problem. No. I can only be writing because I'm a "man-hater". I don't know how to break news this to all the men I love and feel affection for. They'll each wonder "Was I the last to know!?" To clarify, for the billionth time: Someone being anti-patriarchy, anti-male supremacy, and anti-rape based on overwhelming evidence of men's overt, systematic, and increasingly globalised sexual violence against women IS NOT SYNONYMOUS with being "man-hating and male-bashing". It's not even close. They aren't even part of the same phenomenon. Which is partly to say: male supremacy and rape are realities. Man-hating is rare and anecdotal at best, and is in no way systemic, systematic, structural, institutionalised, or... drum roll please... a social problem. Only delusional and privileged men (and a few women) think it is a problem.

So the joke du jour this: 
Question: How do you demonstrate that you don't hate men? 
Answer: There are two ways: actively hate women, and actively hate feminism. And always remember to smile politely when a man looks your way! Because there's no such thing as "unwanted attention" from men, right? (Wrong.) Remember girls: if there's any hint, whiff, or whisper of disrespect in the general vicinity of any man or, heaven forbid--men, you will be immediately socially branded as a blatant "MISANDRIST"! And once labeled, the lunatics will never revoke the accusation, believe you me! (This profeminist gay male can't win for losing. The white straight dudes hate me for loving men, and the white straight dudes hate me for hating men. Go figure. Now who's got that "hate" problem? Make up your mind boys, and Connie.)

This just in: a letter from a little girl named Virginia wondering "Is there really such a thing as 'a misandrist'?

I'll answer it this way: 

"Dear Virginia, 

As long as there is hatred and discrimination and violence against women by men in this world, there will always be men at the ready to call the women (and the two or three people who aren't women) who fight for women's human rights, "misandrists". That doesn't mean there ARE misandrists, Virigina. Only people who BELIEVE there are misandrists

You see, men who feel entitled to abuse anyone female or "feminine" don't like it one bit when they are called out on what they do that harms other people, including their abuses against little girls. 

So, as you grow up, keep this in mind: there's no such thing as "misandry", but you're likely to encounter many forms of misogyny over your lifetime. Hopefully you'll find your way and be able to steer clear of men who speak about women as if they aren't human beings, who use pornography like it's oxygen, who don't have female friends, who try and control you, who are possessive and ragefully jealous, and who have a history of committing violence against girls and women. I realise this reduces the number of boys and men you'll want to socialise with and know on a more personal level. But don't forget: girls and women are likely to become your best and most passionately loving friends. 

I hope you'll also be able to steer clear of anyone who believes there is such as thing as 'misandry' because I support you living in reality, not inside delusional men's minds. 

All my best to you.  -- Julian Real"]

The problem, I discovered after a few minutes of looking around over there, is that the blogger, who claims his name is Julian Real, [you know, the one whose name is Julian Real] appears to be completely demented. ['Completely' is a strong word, Connie.]

This guy concocts [I prefer "creates" but she's writing this] his own terminology that requires a fabricated glossary [as opposed to an unfabricating glossary? Are there pre-fab glossaries?]; he remains secure in his "radical profeminist" hatred [once again "legitimate criticism of privileged men" is seen by male supremacists and their defenders as 'man-hating'. Curious thing, that.] of men (if they're white and hetero) [she clearly hasn't read much here] by a commenting policy that allows no challenging opinions. [What explains the challenging comments that have been posted here? Complete dementia? No, Connie. No bigoted and oppressive comments is not the same as "no challenging comments". Again with the misreads: it's interesting that Connie can't discern the difference.] His blog is stuffed like a turkey on Thankgsiving. [Poor choice of "holiday" and metaphor--clearly she's no animal rights activist or Indigenous Rights activist either. A few more remarks like that and she may want to start up a blog in defence of Mel Gibson!] Look down the right sidebar at all the links, labels and previous posts. [My goodness--he actually links to the work of other people--often women with fewer privileges than he has! It's ... it's... misandrist, I tell you!]

Among them, you'll find Real's bio, which says he is disabled, [as opposed to being disabled; we can note she doesn't say "in which he says he's white"] which explains why he has so much time to create and then wallow in such hatred. [Wallowing in hatred? I don't see hatred--or wallowing, either. Just crispy analysis and succulent critique. I get hungry just glancing at it! AND PLEASE NOTE: The level of her ableism in concluding that it is because I'm disabled that I have this time to blog--as opposed to having the time to blog regardless of being disabled, is a minor point in the scheme of things. Clearly not all regular bloggers are disabled, and she also has no idea to what degrees my disabilities keep me from blogging MORE.] Men (and women) who have to go to work and earn the money to put the 'taters on the table don't have time for such foolishness. (And this is no smear of the disabled, either. I've known numerous disabled folks who spent their time doing positive things.) [Apparently not like working to put 'taters on the table. That's what most disabled people do, isn't it? Work to make ends meet? Does she REALLY know disabled people? She's alleges she's "known numerous disabled folks who spent their time doing positive things"? (Like macrame? Advanced origami, maybe?) Isn't that about as backhanded a compliment as "I've known many gay men who I swear are very moral people?" or "I've met lots of women who aren't overly emotional!" If that's how she compliments disabled people, I'd hate to hear her insults!]

Demented or not, when I stumbled across the site [I seriously doubt she stumbled--I suspect she sauntered on in without so much as a "How do you do?" I guess that white Southern hospitality is gone with the wind, huh?], I was on a mission, [uh-oh: a missionary! Run for the hills!] so I stayed long enough to look for posts on rape culture. A search of the site using that terminology reveals eight pages of articles, the first one a movie review of The Karate Kid remake written by Malik Diamond, "hip-hop medicine man from the fifth dimension." (I'm not making this up.) [Connie-the-racist-ableist-pro-patriarchal-blogger clearly has no sense of play or fun. And they say pro/feminists have no sense of humor! Geesh. When WILL they stop projecting!]

I have to say, after visiting Julian Real's little corner of cyber-insanity, [Awwww. Cute term!] it'll be a bit of a relief to get back to ordinary man-hating from, say, Michael Kimmel at Feministing. [He's a profeminist Men's Studies teacher and writer, folks. He works a whole lot with many men of many ages and doesn't suffer "anti-misandrist" fools gladly. He's exactly as much a man-hater as Tony Hayward of BP is an environmental activist.] At least Mr. Kimmel's stuff reads like he was sober when he wrote it. [So now I'm demented AND drunk. Again, one wonders why she'd bother writing about me at all, then!]

About the best thing I can say about Real's blog is that visiting it doesn't cause permanent brain damage. [I don't think she's visited long enough to be able to make that determination. ;) And that's NOT an invitation back!]

*Connie is a member of the FRS team. Her weekly essays appear every Friday. Her personal blog is


Archivist said...
Great one, Connie. Sorry we're late posting it this week -- my fault.
Anonymous said...
Julian Real is a great example of an HONEST feminist, as opposed to all the rhetorically disciplined EARNEST feminists who populate the blogs like Feministing and such ... Another great example of HONEST FEMINISM is BitingBeaver, please do read up on her. If you have the stomach for it.
Michael Waters said...
For instance, on Julian's blog, one time I found this post by a radical feminist called v.
The discussion was about a comment an MRA said, I think. that's the "scary stuff" she refers to.
One thing I really got about this woman is that she must have had some truly horrible experiences with men, and so she slanders all men because of that. v was supported by Julian in a comment after this.
My stomach literally (viscerally) turns. When I read this post, it makes me feel like vomiting. So be forewarned.
v said...
"Well I can appreciate your desire Julian not to have scary stuff on here, for fear of terrorizing women who comment here or gay men for that matter. However, I do like to see what men have to say at their worst, because most of my straight women friends don't believe me when I talk about this stuff, unless they get divorced, and are dumped for a younger woman, then they tend to get it. But by then they are in their early 50s, have sole responsibility for the kids, and then have to go on the dating scene where jerky men are legion it seems. Too late, they wasted their youth on a man. I wish we could have preventive medicine for younger women--just stay away from these guys to begin with, because this is who tbey really are. It is a sad thing, because lesbians love older women, and love it when women have gray hair. Our lucky radical feminist generation really honored women and age and life experience. Straight men and gay men don't like older women or older men. Men just don't like older people period. I think having a sense of humanity is not that great a thing. I really believe that women are naieve in wanting to be humane to terrorists, rapists and porn makers. You can't be humane to men, you have to be very aggressively violent to them-- direct simple phrases, the threat of stomping them if they can't shut up, lawsuits to make them pay women fair wages, lawsuits to get them to stop sexually harassing women at work... men understand lawsuits, money confiscation, and a gun to their heads. So women need not be humane toward men ever.
 We can be as rude as necessary to scare them away. Being nice to men never got me anywhere! The tougher I was, the better off I became, and now I am passionate in my show of complete scary contempt toward men in public places. From kicking their legs on buses, to stealing parking spaces and watching them scream, to spitting in their direction at a nice restaurant. Love to see their shock at that. It's pretty cool. Since all men are guilty it is open season! You need not worry about that silly concept known as an "innocent man" because all men are guilty and deserve to be attacked for their past history. You can assume that all men view porn, so spit at them at least.
 One of my friends was a police officer, and she loved slamming the heads of violent men on car hoods as she took them into custody. They almost always tried something with her, only to have their heads smashed. Some guys on the street were very fearful of her patrol car. We all loved her stories back in the day. But a lot of women can't summon this level of contempt or hatred, and that's a shame. I think women could really get into pushing weak men around, kicking them, spitting at them, shoving them out of the way. Good practice, because again, men don't respect women, they hate women, and we need to hate them back. Fear works with men, because ultimately they fear the day women wake up. They fear feminists for this reason. I know most feminists are pretty nice women, but I think being angry is great! An angry feminist is great, but most feminists are way too nice to men. Women's nice training should be revealed only to other women, and we need to show 24 hour hostility towards men."
Ironically, I know what she means about it being helpful to see men at their worst. This is certainly an example of a woman at her worst and it was eye-opening for me to read.
Anonymous said...
No offence but its it really wise to be linking to these sites? Linking to a site increases its Google rank and therefore legitimises it. It's great to discuss these things, but I'm sure some of those sites publish hate speech and a great deal of misandric content. Could we not just leave the names there without actually having a link?

Connie Chastain said...
Anonymous at 7:07, honest? Please. Real just posted a "top ten" list of things about Jesus that "most Christians don't want you to know." As a Christian, there are things in the list I have no problem with people knowing -- e.g., yes, Jesus was not a Christian. Duh. Christianity did not exist during his earthly lifetime. How is that honest? As for other things in the list, how is it honest to make claims about things nobody can know? Here's another example of the blog's dishonesty: a post from December 2009 titled "What's Wrong With Fathers' Rights". If linking to it is a bad idea, go to his blog and search "men's rights advocate," and click the title of the first article in the index. It starts with a translink to a very dishonest photo of "bad fathers," and does downhill from there. The article reproduced in the blog post is Father’s Rights and Violence Against Women by Dr. Michael Flood. Read it and tell me what's honest in palming off half-lies as whole truth. I guess we can take some small comfort in knowing Real's blog isn't widely read, but it is quite breathtaking to see damaging, real-world effects of feminist thought in the post-modern age....
Anonymous said...
"Heterosexist" means "discussing relationships -- without even mentioning lesbians!" In case anybody was wondering.
Social Worker said...
Connie, this list you posted are the fairly well-known blogs and generally considered the centrist feminism blogs. I don't know about all of them, but most. If you really want the eye-opening Radfem viewpoint, try: Femonade: who just did a series on PIV (I had no idea what that was before reading it). or which I haven't read myself. or a lot of trans-hating there, which I really don't understand. You can go from there if you really want the lay of the land. It is fascinating stuff.
Social Worker said...
Ironically, Julian Real is not liked by many of the more radical feminists. Again, I don't know why. From the bits I've read, he seems pretty radical to me. Anon @ 7:07: what is the difference between an Honest Feminist and Earnest Feminist? I'm assuming those are actual terms.
Anonymous said...
I agree with Connie. While the links to those sites may increase their Google rankings, it is also good to "know your enemy." We must know that such people and sites that she has linked to and described actually exist. We must develop a taxonomy to describe and categorize such people and websites, because when we can name and describe something, it gives us power and control over it. Without the ability to make distinctions, i.e. "equity feminist" versus "gender feminist" we are lost. So, at least now I have a new distinction about what "nucking futz" is as defined by Julian Real and "v" -- I almost think it is satire, like Betty Bowers is to Christianity.

Connie Chastain said...
Anonymous said, 'So, at least now I have a new distinction about what "nucking futz" is as defined by Julian Real and "v" -- I almost think it is satire, like Betty Bowers is to Christianity.' I wondered about that myself.

Julian Real said...
Hey Connie and Michael,
To Connie first.
I doubt you're a woman, and I doubt your name is Connie. See how easy that is to do--to cast doubt on something? It's just that easy. And it really makes you seem foolish, to tell you the truth.
And going after someone who's disabled for being disabled--really classy. Where did you learn to do that? In bigotry school? Why don't you doubt I'm disabled? Because it's not convenient?
To Michael: Why don't you quote my words, instead of lifting some long passage of a commenter? Because I can go to any blog and pick and choose from the comments to find the one that most conveniently makes the point--you're very good at that. What you're not so good at is arguing with the points I make on my blog. Why don't you quote from this post of mine, for example?
or this one:
And continue to quote, you know, the writer of the blog--if you're making a point about the blog, as opposed to the commenters state who visit there? What's the matter: didn't anything I write make your propagandistic point as well as that? You're sad.