"... I condemn whole-heartedly the trivial bullshit it is to go after a man who makes a scientific breakthrough and all that we as women — organized women — do is to fret about his shirt?"Was #shirtstorm organized?
ADDED: I have a few problems with Hirsi Ali's statement: 1. She portrays the various individual reactions to Matt Taylor's shirt as the work of an organized collective, but that's not so. 2. There's nothing wrong with taking a shot at a small problem even though there are larger problems. 3. The women who choose to do the kind of culture critique that was aimed at the shirt are not idiots, nor is fretting about the shirt all they do. 4. Those who decided to go after the women who went after Matt Taylor were themselves guilty of taking something small and inflating it beyond all proportion. That said, I do agree that much of feminism seen on the web these days is predictable, safe writing that feels as though it came from a college course on feminism.
Posts
99 comments:
Of course it was organized.
We must reclaim, and retake feminism from our fellow idiotic women.
You must pass a test before you can vote....er, I mean....be a feminist.
Feminism is pretty much about attacking White men.
Black men rape about 100 White women a day and feminists are silent.
But a White man wears a suggestive shirt and they go crazy.
Organized like a mob of drooling tools with no ability to think critically is organized.
She is accusing the accusers. Robespierre redux.
The use of moral standards that are twisted and reinvented semi-annually to start an internet stoning of the innocent is why people live in fear of social media's legalistic accusers.
I don't know about shirt storm. But the Cosby thing looks like it might have been.
I got am email from a liberal friend severely trashing Sarah Palin even before she had accepted the nomination. It was a foreword of a email from a Mt. Holyoke grad who had moved to Alaska. It had all the insults that later became common. Red-neck being among them. That was the first volley in a clearly orchestrated campaign.
They know how to do this.
"Black men rape about 100 White women a day and feminists are silent."
You made that up, didn't you, Robert White?
Let's put it this way. When the Atlantic writer first posted her obnoxious, clueless tweets, the first instinct of many progressives was to echo and support her, and to amplify its reach. So it wasn't organized per se, but it activated automatic support.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an actual casualty in the real war on women, should have our ear concerning the insipid crap that passes for "feminism" in Western culture. That Western "feminists" have shunned and marginalized her is their deepest shame, on philosophical par with the US turning away the SS St. Louis. Feminists can't hide that shame as long as brave women like Ayaan Hirsi Ali shine light into the dark recesses of their souls.
David, the number of White women raped every year by Black men is about 35,000.
I'm not sure if there any proven cases of White men raping Black women in the last decade. Although this last claim was made by Ann Coulter, I can't find any either.
#shirtstorm didn't start out organized. A resistance and pushback coalesced around it as the furor grew. Same with #gamergate.
I should have included this link:
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=26368
You can dig through the data on rape stats and race.
But again, feminism doesn't care, it never has. It's purely about attacking White men as a practical matter.
"Shirtstorm" is still reverberating around the world and women who supported it are looking worse ever week. Anybody know who did ?
It wasn't organized in the sense that they did not initiate it. He had to wear the shirt first. But the feminists are like a well organized and trained militia. They know their jobs without being told, and carry them out with enthusiasm.
It's a bit like when Vince Foster died. Nobody had to tell the Clinton aides to sanitize his office. They just knew what they were supposed to do, and did it.
Suppose everyone (i.e., the press, bloggers, etc.) had ignored the stupid tweet (from the stupid twit -- sorry, couldn't resist) about the shirt. It wouldn't ever have become a story, as it shouldn't have.
Now, really, what standing does Ayan Hirsi Ali have in this matter.
I mean, just because she's only risked her life, while real feminists run the danger of Twitter snark...
One of the things that women and men are different in is that women enjoy complaining to men.
Feminism ought to embrace this - do what you will enjoy - but also recognize it.
The complaining is in reality quest-sending. It tests the man's willingness. That's it's survival value, at least if directed to a particular man.
If the woman shows the man that she's satisfied with him in addition, quest achieved or not, then you have a happy marriage.
Feminism cuts it a little short.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali has done all the stuff white Western women pretend about: went through a life of hell, escaped, took control of her life, built a career, learned new languages and culture, basically stood up for herself.
Celebrated as a heroic sister?
Hah. Reviled. Detested. Loathed.
You can tell a lot about people by who they hate.
No. It wasn't. Is the word 'organized' the crux of her argument?
Also, 'feminism' isn't about women at all. It's barely about gender. It's mostly about advancing liberalism/progressivism. Zero integrity.
David said...
"Black men rape about 100 White women a day and feminists are silent."
You made that up, didn't you, Robert White?
It's a DOJ number, *sorta: "In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted* or raped by a black man [> 100/day], while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man."
They are organized like sharks: when someone throws blood in the water, they are attracted and attack.
It's kind of unfair for Ayaan Hirsi Ali to pick on feminists. Going after Muslim men for performing clitorectomies with unsterile implements, not to mention their overall paleolithic treatment of women, risks getting one's head cut off. Much more fun to pick on a socially awkward nerd and spoil the most triumphant moment of his life.
I don't think all of the comments were organized reaction, but some of it was.
Which parts, specifically, were organized, Lyle? And by whom?
Fernandinande is right. They combine rape and sexual assault.
Here is the actual DOJ report from their website. You go down to table 42.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus05.pdf
So in the course of a year, 35K White women are raped or sexually assaulted by Black men. And 0 (or less than 10) Black women were likewise treated by White men.
This is of no interest to feminists. And I guess John Grisham is still writing novels about those roving bands of rapist White men looking for Black females.
It all came from college courses on Feminism. How else did the unschooled girls from the backwaters of America come to think of their lives as oppressed, as their boyfriends and fathers and brothers oppressors? This stupidity was dripped into them in school, more recently than ever, and the dumb cheerleaders from flyover were converted to sophistication, to enlightenment and to the warmth of righteous anger.
Robert White--
The link to the actual report cited in the article you linked was broken.
I looked at the FBI Report for rape in 2013. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/rape
The report indicates that there were 79,770 "reported" rapes (legacy definition) in the United States in 2013. The report does not break down the statistics by race.
If there were 79,770 reported rapes in the whole country, it does not seem that your number of 35,000 white women raped by black men could be correct.
I searched for over a half hour and could not find the kind of statistics you are citing. I am not saying they do not exist, but your links do not reveal them and I could not find them.
I would be glad to look at the actual data. I disbelieve all summaries of crime statistics these days that relate to rape and are arranged by race.
Again, glad to look at the actual data.
She portrays the various individual reactions to Matt Taylor's shirt as the work of an organized collective, but that's not so.
I think "mob" is fair. It's not like these are all individual reactions. They are feeding off each other, egging each other on, getting angrier and angrier. It's an on-line mob, not as dangerous as a mob in the street. But it's the same dynamic, I think.
There's nothing wrong with taking a shot at a small problem even though there are larger problems.
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
The women who choose to do the kind of culture critique that was aimed at the shirt are not idiots, nor is fretting about the shirt all they do.
It's not idiotic to notice the shirt, or talk about the shirt, or make fun of the shirt.
It is idiotic to get angry about the shirt, furious about the shirt, throwing a tantrum over the shirt.
It's the difference between Althouse and stupid feminists.
I am a master of rage, but other people should not try it.
I will smite thee with righteous anger. Unless I get so damn mad I shoot my own foot.
David,
The link works for me let me try again. Does it work for anyone else? Here is it:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus05.pdf
You may can also search for the 2005 report using this search term, which is the title of the DOJ report. It will be the first PDF item that comes up.
"Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2005
Statistical Tables"
2005 is the late time this data is broken out by race, as far as I know. The report says appx 111K White women were raped/sexually assaulted and that 33.6% of the offenders against the White category of victim, were Black.
Table 42.
You have to forgive her, she's worried about FGM, rape, forced marriage, slavery, and honor killings. Seeing all of this effort and attention given to this shirt, given the way feminists and the media have shunned her, must be infuriating.
The tweet posted by the Atlantic writer (who I assure considers herself an organizer) was itself an attempt to organize focused outrage against the scientist.
Table 42 of the Report cited by Robert White does indeed purport to show that 33.6% of the rapes and sexual assaults inflicted on white women during the year 2005 were perpetrated by persons "perceived as" black men. It also said that 19.6% of the assaults were perpetrated by "other" (neither white nor black.)
So I withdraw the suggestion that Mr. White made up the statistic.
I do think, however, that the validity of the statistic requires inquiry, which I have neither the information nor the time to do right now. Particularly, are these extrapolations from a smaller sample, or actual conclusions from the full sample of about 180,000? How and when were the "perceptions" articulated? And is it really true that of all the black women raped during the same time period, not a single one was raped by a white man? That I seriously doubt.
I wonder if the statistic has been replicated? In the two studies I looked at for 2013, that data was not presented. Is this because the data is nor reliable? Or because the result was embarrassing?
Finally, I do not think that "feminists" are indifferent to the rape of any woman by a man f any race. The question is whether this statistic is reliable, and I do not know the answer.
What I find strange is that in the part of the country where I live, rape of a white woman by a black man would still be newsworthy. I have lived in a racially mixed part of South Carolina for ten years now, and can not recall stories about black men raping white women. Perhaps that is no longer news around here, but I doubt it.
(Note also that the above statistics relate to "rape-rapes" but also to assaults not involving penetration, which are about half the sample. Later data use different categories, it seems.
It's true what Hillary said so many years ago, "The problem with the internet is that there are no gatekeepers."
I think it is great. It is going to be really hard to force inorganic movements on the culture anymore.
3. The women who choose to do the kind of culture critique that was aimed at the shirt are not idiots,
The fuck they aren't. But "feminists" sitting in ivory towers in lily white suburbs can't seem to grasp that.
1: It is the action of people with a shared outlook on life.
2: There is no legitimate way that "anti-slut shaming" "feminists" can claim that his shirt was a legitimate problem. If women have the right to wear what they want without criticism, then so do men. If it's acceptable to criticize men for what they wear, then it's equally right to criticize women for what they wear.
Pike one, and stick to it.
3: Yes, they are idiots, and that kind of worthless bullshit IS all they do. More importantly, when was the last time they publicly worried about anything important, like FGM, or "honor killings"?
4: No, the cultural fascists are attempting to destroy us, what thuggish attack at a time. Crushing them is needed, and important.
An analogy: shooting someone for trying to steal a quarter is an overreaction.
Aggressively going after people who routinely shoot people for stealing a quarter, OTOH, is NOT an overreaction, or obsessing about something minor.
Are all tweets expressing annoyance or anger an attempt to organize focused outrage? If no, what is it about the Atlantic writer's tweet that makes it "an attempt to organize focused outrage"?
I am going to follow up on the "organized" theme. In the army we call them battle drills. A coordinated team action with minimal communication. When you are shot at you react to contact. The engaged unit returns suppressive fire and allows a flanking unit to clear through the zone. We train on it over and over.
When a woman sounds the call all of the other women jump in. They all say the same thing and they train on this repeatedly in womens studies classes. The target is set and the strategies and tactics are known. They don't need to communicate about it. Everyone knows what to do.
They don't know what the goals are. They are just drones doing the bidding of the people that put them 6 figures in debt for a worthless degree. In the same way soldiers are carrying out the commanders intent, these women don't know what is really going on. That is how they can support Bill the liar/groper/rapist Clinton and stay mum on clitoridectomies and honor killings and a real rape culture in Rotherdam and fly off the handle on a stupid shirt or the "rape epidemic" on campuses.
They know enough to know they are hypocrites and soulless harpies though.
Are all tweets expressing annoyance or anger an attempt to organize focused outrage?
Perhaps. I wasn't making a point about Twitter (I've only used it about a dozen times) I was making a point about the writer's motivation, which appears to have escaped our hostess's attention.
Fisking the Professor:
I have a few problems with Hirsi Ali's statement: 1. She portrays the various individual reactions to Matt Taylor's shirt as the work of an organized collective, but that's not so.
"Organized" in the sense that herds of buffalo are "organized." One starts stampeding and they all run over the cliff.
2. There's nothing wrong with taking a shot at a small problem even though there are larger problems.
The real problem is that women are scared off from the hard sciences because many of the men are socially awkward. Oh! The horror!
3. The women who choose to do the kind of culture critique that was aimed at the shirt are not idiots,
Says you.
nor is fretting about the shirt all they do.
Hard to believe, but perhaps you're right. Some are also repulsed by geeks wearing shorts, for instance.
4. Those who decided to go after the women who went after Matt Taylor were themselves guilty of taking something small and inflating it beyond all proportion.
Not really. I think you just don't get it, Professor. Getting angry at a guy because you don't like his shirt suggests something very important about women that is not at all attractive. Want more women in STEM? Tell them to learn to cope with guys who are socially awkward and not up on the latest crap from Amanda Marcotte.
That said I do agree that much of feminism seen on the web these days is predictable, safe writing that feels as though it came from a college course on feminism.
My keyboard may short out from the tears of relief pouring from my eyes, though I can't help but note that you wrote "much" when you should have typed "nearly all."
Here's the thing that someone with an undergraduate degree in art just doesn't get. In STEM we work in teams, and we test each other pretty mercilessly. If a woman wants to work in STEM she'd better have a good sense of humor, the more self-deprecating the better. You're either tough enough or you're no damned good at all.
And what you, and your feminist partners in crime have said, loud and clear, is that women are too delicate, their sensibilities too refined, to work in a team with the STEM males of the species, lest a funny shirt drive them into hysterics. When management hires one of these little hothouse flowers and inflicts her on your team, you will have to walk on eggshells around her. And you sure can't give her any sort of critical assignment lest she wilt under the pressure of having to work with all those geeks.
Well done, Professor. You've just undercut every female undergraduate in the hard sciences. For forty years I've mentored and tried to encourage women in software engineering, and I'm pleased that some of them have done very well with their careers. And you've spoiled it.
I wouldn't say they are idiots. They are cowards, unlike Hirsi, but they are not idiots.
Cultural criticism attracts scolds.
So how can you tell that the writer's motivation was to organize others into focused outrage, and not simply to express her feelings of anger and annoyance?
Are your blog comments about her expressing your own annoyance, or are you attempting to focus others' outrage on her? I think it's the former, but I'm curious as to what exactly spells out the difference, in your mind.
" 3. The women who choose to do the kind of culture critique that was aimed at the shirt are not idiots"
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Now it turns out that the Mario Bros are sexist pigs
It has been a conspiracy against women forever.
I have lived in a racially mixed part of South Carolina for ten years now, and can not recall stories about black men raping white women.
Polite people don't keep racial statistics.
Look, the CDC has been manufacturing a rape epidemic for several years now. This is done to divide people along gender lines. I don't know which racist asshole (Hoover?) came up with the brilliant idea of dividing criminals into racial categories, but it is a similar phenomenon. Divide people into racial categories and get them thinking racially.
Race is an idiotic construct. It tells you nothing about a human being, certainly nothing in regard to your safety. It's prehistoric logic. And quoting government racists does not make you immune from the charge of being a racist.
We should stop dividing people into races, period. We should stop it on the census. Send the whole sorry charade to hell, where it belongs.
The women who choose to do the kind of culture critique that was aimed at the shirt are not idiots
There are two options:
1. They're idiots.
2. They're worthless pieces of shit.
Like Ali, I'm opting for the nicer explanation.
"Was #shirtstorm organized?"
Safe to say, yes. Just as Journolist begat Gamechange Salon. There was a listserv behind Gamergate (17 articles in industry journals, on or around August 28th, all declaring gamers dead).
The brownshirt memebots are organized.
I recommend Carell and Hathaway _Get Smart_ (2008), for more or less accurate feminism and a guy who's indifferent to it but accepts it.
The heart of it, ignoring the gags and guy-as-schlub bits, is that women can do whatever men do as well as men but do it grimly where the guy is all into it having a great time.
Feminism ought to spot that sexual difference, which comes up all over.
You can't override it with political movements.
New Feminist Approved Shirt that highly-cited rocket scientists are allowed to wear.
Getting angry at a guy because you don't like his shirt suggests something very important about women that is not at all attractive.
It's controlling behavior, that's all. Both sexes do it, all the time.
In real life most of us are too polite to criticize what other people are wearing. On the internet people are too rude.
This is not a stupid shirt.
Ladies and gentlemen, rational and reasonable have left the building.
The equivalence. It burns!
That said, unless Taylor's violation of decorum was habitual or extraordinary, then the appropriate action would have been for rational and reasonable human beings to have a private conversation and reconcile their differences. Instead, Feltman engaged in playground journalism to exploit the situation (including the conveniently located lights and cameras for the occasion) in order to profit her personal and special interests.
Talking about fashion is stereotypically female. So that's another way shirtstorm is bad for feminism. It's convinced many people that women obsess about fashion and suck at science.
I think many of us were revolted at the anger and stupidity of it. But from a strictly feminist point of view, it was really anti-feminist for women to go into fashion-mode and neglect to see the Marvels of Science.
helpful bumper sticker for feminists: "What would Amelia Earhart do?"
Are your blog comments about her expressing your own annoyance, or are you attempting to focus others' outrage on her?
I'm expressing my opinion as part of an ongoing conversation with the others who regularly visit this blog.
Althouse is the Lou Gehrig of bloggers, by the way. No days off, no complaints, rain or shine, always here. And she never deletes her mistakes. Her blog is really pretty awesome.
I tried to do what she does, when she booted us all off? Lasted about a week. And it gave me a fresh perspective of all the work she puts into it.
Althouse as the Iron Horse. I like it.
"Those who decided to go after the women who went after Matt Taylor were themselves guilty of taking something small and inflating it beyond all proportion."
Nemo me impune lacessit.
I take exception to your point #1: you say it was not an organized collective. How can you be sure of that? I mean the response to Gruber on Obamacare was supposed to be based on some some independent review, too. But, we learned that was a big, fat lie. Plant a story with Ezra Klein, have other dishonest liberals ran their story about how independent Gruber is, make some comments, then have the WH link to those stories and all of a of a sudden you have all kinds of people saying " this Gruber guy - what a genius". Maybe the feminists aren't so connected but I actually don't believe that. The feminists have their listserves just like any other group.
They are all in cahoots IMO.
She portrays the various individual reactions to Matt Taylor's shirt as the work of an organized collective, but that's not so.
Maybe not in the sense of the #stopRush twitter coordinated astroturf campaign, or journolist, but don't tell me that the RadFem activists don't all know when to get outraged.
Self assembly:
Self-assembly is a type of process in which a disordered system of pre-existing components forms an organized structure or pattern as a consequence of specific, local interactions among the components themselves, without external direction.
Molecular self-assembly was fashionable a few years back which just goes to show that science can be trendy.
The obviousness is what gets me...and how knee-jerk it comes across as...and how smugly 'gotcha' the SJWs can be.
I was at a Scotch tasting the other night, and after the presentation on the craft and history of the brand, the first question is, "Why didn't you mention any women?" The presenter had a great story about the distillery manager that seemed to placate this justice warrior, but what the hell was she trying to accomplish in that setting? Predominately old men drink Scotch, and as long as that continues to hold true, it will be predominately marketed to old men.
Gahrie, right. And you don't intend to focus outrage in this conversation. So how can you say that the writer wasn't simply expressing her feelings in an ongoing conversation with the people who frequent her twitter feed (or the feed of anyone she was "@" addressing)?
"were themselves guilty of taking something small and inflating it beyond all proportion."
Hardly. This is just the latest example of what is a significant problem. Surprised that you haven't noticed that.
David quoted...The report indicates that there were 79,770 "reported" rapes (legacy definition) in the United States in 2013.
That number itself seems on the low side, considering that around 1 in 5 college women have been raped, according to a DoJ study: link.
Althouse is the Lou Gehrig
I also appreciate the efforts of our hostess. Although, I'm not sure about the Lou Gehrig comparison. He was a great ball player, and then suddenly not. I'd hate to see the demise of this blog.
By the way, I think this is one of the best threads the blog has had in recent history.....although I'm sure I've missed a few.
@chickelit said: "1 in 5 college women have been raped..."
I've not seen this degree of credulity in your previous posts.
1) The women who went after Dr. Taylor are either idiots or ideological fanatics. Take your pick.
2) There was absolutely nothing wrong with Dr. Taylor's shirt except that it was too informal for the occasion. The notion that it's somehow wrong, somehow oppressive to women, for men to enjoy looking and gazing, often and long, at beautiful women and even cartoon pictures of beautiful women that exagerrate their sexual characteristics, well, I don't know where to begin. As I said above, either they are idiots or ideological fanatics.
David, "And is it really true that of all the black women raped during the same time period, not a single one was raped by a white man? That I seriously doubt." I suppose your doubt is more convincing than DOJ stats.
Saint Croix said...
Althouse is the Lou Gehrig of bloggers, by the way. No days off, no complaints, rain or shine, always here. And she never deletes her mistakes. Her blog is really pretty awesome.
Actually, she is the Cal Ripken Jr. of bloggers, as Ripken played in 2,632 consecutive games vs. 2,130 for Gehrig!
David said...
"Table 42 of the Report cited by Robert White does indeed purport to show that 33.6% of the rapes and sexual assaults inflicted on white women during the year 2005 were perpetrated by persons "perceived as" black men. It also said that 19.6% of the assaults were perpetrated by "other" (neither white nor black.)
So I withdraw the suggestion that Mr. White made up the statistic."
So, in short, your knee-jerk denial of the truth that black men rape about 100 white women every day, was a symptom of your inability to recognize the obvious, not, as you supposed, a sign of your superior ability to recognize racist propaganda. And the action you propose to take, now that your preconceptions have been demonstrated to be false, is to double down on stupid.
Saint Croix said...
Althouse is the Lou Gehrig of bloggers, by the way.
I have an old chirbit for nearly every occasion: Lou Gehrig: We're All Yankees Now
I love Althouse, but quit on this one already!
Went by the pharmacy this week.
Medicines essential for health: $100
Birth control: $0
She has a point.
Althouse is prolific, but she is a minor leaguer. Jonathan Turley has a great blog and he is an actual attorney. Hell, he's suing Obama. Turley has a much better blog, is a real attorney, a much better person, and you don't need to read about his lame spouse.
Ann Althouse said... 4. Those who decided to go after the women who went after Matt Taylor were themselves guilty of taking something small and inflating it beyond all proportion.
What do you think failing to respond to the unreasonable attacks on Dr. Taylor would have taught those women and their intended audiences, Prof? "You shouldn't ever hit back" is never going to be a winning strategy. Model the problem in game theory terms as a coordination game, run it as an iterated prisoner's dilemma--"tit for tat" will almost always win. If they had a reasonable reaction and moderated their response/criticism then a reasonable response and discussion is possible. Since they went on the attack (in personal terms), successfully changed the focus (whether they actually intended to do so or not), and extracted their apology, a requisite response was (regrettably) necessary. It wasn't "whining" and I'm afraid it won't do to encourage people who pushed back to "be the bigger man, suck it up, and take it" when the attack is so far out of line.
It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: --
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
RecChief said...
"She portrays the various individual reactions to Matt Taylor's shirt as the work of an organized collective, but that's not so.
Maybe not in the sense of the #stopRush twitter coordinated astroturf campaign, or journolist, but don't tell me that the RadFem activists don't all know when to get outraged."
As mentioned above, it is merely a battle drill for these people now.
I think it's time to stop beating up on Ann because she bought into a stupid theme on the shirt storm thing.
After all, she is a female and too delicate for such criticism.
That number itself seems on the low side, considering that around 1 in 5 college women have been raped, according to a DoJ study:
It's the 1 in 5 number that is bogus. Sommers wrote a book on the subject.
It's a definition of "rape" that has no correlation with criminal law. Just for starters, these are rape accusations, not rapes. How about a little due process, cross examination, jury trial, before we convict millions of men of being rapists?
But it's far worse than that!
Those "victims" are defined by the researchers, not by the people answering the survey. That's how they get stupid statistics like millions of men are raped by women.
I'm a rape victim, under the federal guidelines, since I've had sex with people who were a lot more sober than I was. It's a massive feminist project to redefine rape into a non-violent crime that affects both sexes equally. But of course this feminist ideology is moronic and has no correlation with reality.
Rape is a violent crime that men do. And false rape claims are something that women do. And both rapists and false rape claimants are motivated by similar things: anger and hatred against an entire gender that comes down on one innocent person.
In fact you could say that a false rape claim is rape-by-proxy since the hope is that the man will be sentenced to prison, where it's likely that he might be raped.
Creating a climate of hysteria about rape, which the DOJ and the CDC want to do, helps nobody. Unless they think "war on women" brings out the vote or something. I don't know what the hell they're doing. Certainly not science (or law).
Jupiter: So, in short, your knee-jerk denial of the truth that black men rape about 100 white women every day, was a symptom of your inability to recognize the obvious, not, as you supposed, a sign of your superior ability to recognize racist propaganda. And the action you propose to take, now that your preconceptions have been demonstrated to be false, is to double down on stupid.
I admitted I was wrong in questioning whether the statistic had a factual basis, Jupiter. There is such a report. I've been wrong before, and will be wrong again.
acm:
all right
I'm an evil person, a hopeless hypocrite and beyond the bounds of human behavior.
Will an abject apology suffice, or will you require my ritual seppekku?
And yes, Jupiter, I am still skeptical about the accuracy of the statistic, though it's clearly what the report says.
I hope the protest was organized. It's kind of scary that they would all have such cloned responses. Why doesn't a shirt like that inspire a variety of responses from vexed to annoyed to amused to oblivious? Feminism should include multitudes........The cause célèbre of the 1920's was Sacco & Vanzetti. There was endless crap written about how it was impossible for an Italian American immigrant in America to get a fair trial. Some of that crap won Pulitzer Prizes. So far as I know there was nothing written about Lowndes County sharecroppers, There were two published reports about the politically motivated famines in the Soviet Union, but, of course, the Pulitzer went to Duranty who denied its existence......,Ali is the starved Russian peasant. She's just a distraction from the true, just cause.
It was co-ordinated by the actions on twitter and other social media. Althouse is confusing, or trying to confuse, organized with pre-arranged.
Major logical failure here: Compare "2. There's nothing wrong with taking a shot at a small problem even though there are larger problems." to "4. Those who decided to go after the women who went after Matt Taylor were themselves guilty of taking something small and inflating it beyond all proportion."
Let's see if I can fix it.
"2. There's nothing wrong with taking a shot at a small problem even though there are larger problems [when Althouse agrees with you]." "4. [But] Those who decide to go after [those with whom Althouse does not agree about small problems are] themselves guilty of taking something small and inflating it beyond all proportion [because Althouse is always right]."
Come on, Ann. If one side starts by taking something small and inflating it beyond all proportion -- as the shirt-objectors did here by freaking out to the point that they made the man cry on the day he landed a thing on a comet because of the shirt he had on -- and the other side points out that they're taking something small and inflating it beyond all proportion -- in order to defend the person who's been hurt beyond all proportion by the inflation freak-out -- how can you possibly fail to this extent to comprehend what you're seeing? You, a law professor?
If you want to talk about inflating small problems out of all proportion, you're the one who called people "antifeminist" for standing up for the scientist. If you're going to get into that degree of exaggerated namecalling and intentional refusal to understand the views of your opponents, you can hardly object to words like "idiot" for the folks on your side. Whether they actually are idiots or not, they did look like idiots when they freaked out to such a degree over, for pity's sake, a shirt. Defending them in such an illogical way doesn't do much to improve the picture.
The collective left move and act as a blob. An unthinking mass of talking points sponsored by Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart, leftwing hollywod and Katie Couric.
Chelsea Clinton is mom of the year.
sorry - leftwing distraction talking point moment. Put down that Glamour magazine.
anyway Real feminists care about real problems, not whiny decadent nonsense.
Gahrie,
You seem to be blowing things slightly out of proportion, since I never asked for an apology and don't think you're a bad person. I hear blowing things out of proportion is sort of...frowned upon, round these parts.
There's nothing wrong with taking a shot at a small problem even though there are larger problems.
Strawman. The criticism is not attacking a "small" problem. The criticism is attacking a "trivial" problem. A critic of a "trivial" problems is almost my definition petty and stupid.
So part of it is simply perception. You see a small problem. Ali sees a trivial one.
Even if you see a "small" problem: doesn't proportionality ever come into play?
"Thanks for ruining the comet landing for me asshole."
https://twitter.com/roseveleth/status/532539812855959552
The comet landing is ruined. The scientist is an asshole for ruining the comet landing for her.
This the vernacular of a bratty, melodramatic, 16-year-old girl, not a feminist critic to be taken seriously.
My Super Sweet Sixteen Comet Landing.
So...ritual seppekku it is then....give me some time to write my haikku.....
A geekshirt feminists can get behind.
Just for the record:
If anyone was to suggest that the tweet from the Atlantic writer was an attempt by a self-rightous, self-important, feminist harridan to use someone else's accomplishment to gin up faux outrage and make it all about her and womyn...
That would be wrong, and I denounce you.
right, now off to write my haiku...
And both rapists and false rape claimants are motivated by similar things: anger and hatred against an entire gender that comes down on one innocent person.
I should clarify that there are false rape claims that are entirely innocent. Specifically, when the victim identifies the wrong perp as her rapist. That's a false rape claim, but there's no ill-intent in that situation. It's just a mistake.
There can also be a false rape claim where the woman honestly believes she was raped, but is mistaken. That might be the situation with some of these women who are alleging that Bill Cosby raped them. They honestly believe that he put something in their drinks. If they are right, he's a rapist. If they are wrong, they are just mistaken.
On the other hand, there can be people who are motivated by anger and hatred, and are making a false allegation of rape for that reason.
For instance, Crystal Magnum, who invented a rape, should have been punished for her lies. She was not. And so she went back out on the streets and murdered a man.
A woman who intentionally and maliciously files a false claim of rape against a man should be punished. We should think of this crime as rape-by-proxy. And like every other crime, there should be a presumption of innocence for any woman (or man) charged with this crime, and any charges have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and there needs to be a specific intent to lie and send an innocent man to prison for a crime he didn't do.
Also rape-by-proxy is not concerned with slander, or damage to reputation, or emotional trauma. Those should be resolved by a civil suit. If Bill Cosby wants to sue these women to resolve this dispute, he is free to do so. What I am concerned about are innocent men who are intentionally sentenced to prison by pathological or evil women. I think we need to recognize rape-by-proxy as a crime and punish it severely.
Post a Comment