Author: has written 5281 posts for this blog.

Jill has been blogging for Feministe since 2005.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

155 Responses

  1. Jon C.
    Jon C. November 27, 2005 at 9:41 pm |

    So in case you ever wondered how conservative assholes like Vox Day actually view women, it’s as straight-up property.

    Please don’t call this guy a conservative. That’s insulting to real conservatives- he’s just a vile idiot. Apparently he considers himself a “Christian libertarian”, but his disturbing rant seems to be neither. This kind of trash isn’t even worth condemning at length, because that implies that it’s even worthy of a response in the first place.

  2. EricP
    EricP November 27, 2005 at 9:46 pm |

    As a conservative male who read this post earlier, I can safely say that it doesn’t reflect most conservative men I know. This guy grasps on to some conservative ideas in weird ways and mentions “guns”. That doesn’t make him conservative.

  3. Sophist
    Sophist November 27, 2005 at 10:02 pm |

    If sex without written permission is a crime, then all sex is rape and all men are unrepentant criminals.

    Well, Vox, if you take the people who post on your site to be representitve of the population at large, I can how you might come to that conclusion.

  4. norbizness
    norbizness November 27, 2005 at 10:16 pm |

    Careful, he has a flaming sword (via this hilarious thread).

  5. Roxanne
    Roxanne November 27, 2005 at 10:17 pm |

    …not just a typical easy over girl…

    girl = egg

  6. evil_fizz
    evil_fizz November 27, 2005 at 10:22 pm |

    I love the “who are you to condemn” my desire to rape? Gee, I dunno, perhaps the object of such a vile desire.

    WHY does this fool have a platform to spew such bile?

  7. anashi
    anashi November 27, 2005 at 10:23 pm |

    I can’t breath, that was just so awful. Just no words. None.

  8. Kate
    Kate November 27, 2005 at 10:28 pm |

    I’m astonished by these comments, even though I shouldn’t be.

  9. Scott1960
    Scott1960 November 27, 2005 at 10:28 pm |

    Oh… My… God.

  10. No Blood for Hubris
    No Blood for Hubris November 27, 2005 at 10:31 pm |

    Well, as I read it I was going to make a comment about ordering this person a submissive mail-order bride for Christmas, but it seems he’s figured that one out himself. For a supposed anti-Islamist, he has quite the Taliban notion of how to exert power and control over women.

    In the olden days, guys like VP Spiro Agnew would namecalll feminists as being ugly and undesirable (“women with faces like dogs” ) not unlike Druggie Rush’s “feminazis” and Robertson’s “Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”

    The psychological defense mechanism at work here is: projection. Projecting their deepest fears onto others.

    Those who so deeply fear feminism fear (rightly) that free women will find them personally undesirable; that free women will leave them/ divorce them. Happy marriages/partnerships need no protections–they naturally continue on. Unhappy partnerships can only be maintained by establishing a coercive system.

    This post appears to be written by someone who looks forward to a new dawn of coercive patriarchy.

    Good luck with that, buddy.

  11. susanna
    susanna November 27, 2005 at 10:52 pm |

    I am shocked. I honestly never read so much hateful stuff against women. What I think is strange is that at the bottom of the blog it shows that he alegedly is the “Official Columnist of the National Organization for Women.”

  12. Tapetum
    Tapetum November 27, 2005 at 10:59 pm |

    So I’m going to die, childless and alone, right?

    Wait – I think my husband and children might have something to say about that.

    Every time I read VD, I think he can’t possibly get any more vile, and every time he manages to exceed himself. Much more and I won’t be able to look at his site without becoming physically ill. He’s already making me nauseous.

  13. Heliologue
    Heliologue November 27, 2005 at 10:59 pm |

    Off the streetcorner and into the digital domain. You have to love the internet’s egalitarian approach to empowerment.

    I think that Vox is going to get gangraped by angry women with large, unlubricated strap-ons. I would comfort him afterwards, but, well.

  14. Norah
    Norah November 27, 2005 at 11:00 pm |

    He is disturbing.

    Why are there women that eagerly leap to defend that bullshit? That’s what really turns my stomach. Do they think it will win them boyfriends or husbands?

    “I’m not like those women!”

  15. Auguste
    Auguste November 27, 2005 at 11:04 pm |

    Recommented from Vox’ comment thread, because I am pleased with the comment:

    I’m just curious what basis the moral relativists have for condemning rape in the first place. If I deem the slaking of my desire for lust – or violence, if you prefer that theory of rape – to be an intrinsic good, who are you to condemn it? Certainly, one could argue that it is a violation of private property rights, but then, what of those moral relativists who reject the notion of private property. If all property is held in common, then how can a woman object if I decide to make use of that which belongs to me?

    Calling you on a strawman in this particular article is akin to criticizing John Wayne Gacy for being a shitty clown, but I think you’ll find that most “moral relativists” consider that “anything is morally permissible” only extends to when it does not do (demonstrable) physical or emotional harm to another person. (To nail it down a little more, just because somebody’s skeeved out by two guys living together doesn’t mean that particular homophobe can be reasonably said to be receiving emotional harm.)

    Then again, parsing your last sentence, I guess rapists aren’t really harming a “person” anyway, so it doesn’t really matter.

  16. Tanooki Joe
    Tanooki Joe November 27, 2005 at 11:07 pm |

    I’m always very skeptical of women who claim they were raped- especially to completion- because it is actually extremely difficult to rape a struggling, dry woman.

    “I mean, I’ve raped a lot of women in my day, and let me tell you, nothing bruises the ol’ totem pole like a dry cooter.”

    Not to blame the victim, but I’m gonna go ahead and blame the victim.

    Exactly.

    It’s a bit like approaching a group of Crips late at night and calling them a bunch of bleepin’ faggots and then slapping one in the face.

    When a women dresses provactively, she’s assaulting your masculinity with the lethal weapon of blue balls.

    What goes for the metaphysical sphere goes for the physical sphere.

    Just like when Spinoza proved the immorality of being a cocktease.

    God, he is the worst “libertarian” ever. What is up with theocrats who think their libertarians?

  17. Joel Sax
    Joel Sax November 27, 2005 at 11:30 pm |

    Jill: Oooo. Ick!

    This Pox Day is so much worse than a bedbug!

    This style of argumentation in favor of rape (can we call it anything else?) strikes me as outright sociopathic. Pox Day claims to be a strict moralist, but his choice of argumentation style exposes a sex predator. There is no “moral relativism” when it comes to rape: if the lady doesn’t give her permission, bubby-boy, it’s rape. So put it back in your pants.

    No, I ain’t going to buy the “you want to do it, too” argument. First, you have no insight whatsoever into my mind, Pox. Second, whether I do or not, what matters is that ~I don’t~.

    I don’t publish rape fantasies to the web. I don’t make bodies that I don’t own into city streets that I can expect to drive on as I will. I don’t attempt to chain those bodies to my own morality. There are so many differences between Pox and I it isn’t funny. I think Pox knows this, but true to the sociopath type he will claim that his opportunistic, predatory morality matches my compassionate one.

    Don’t invite this guy to your house, folks.

  18. Kyra
    Kyra November 27, 2005 at 11:32 pm |

    Can we castrate all these people? Please?

  19. Mark
    Mark November 27, 2005 at 11:46 pm |

    Wow, that “Vox” is one disturbed guy.

  20. karpad
    karpad November 27, 2005 at 11:52 pm |

    You know, he’s right, all men are rapists.

    and I gotta be honest, my idea of entertaining rape wouldn’t women. Women, after all, are just so used to it. getting beaten down by a psychotic storm trooper of male dominance. there’s no challenge.

    Raping a Rapist? that takes skill. that’s overwhelming fucking masculinity. Those that seek to dominate the world, I shall beat into submission. fucking Macho.

    so… anyone got the original posters home address? since, you know, he’s already agreed that rape is morally acceptible?

    not saying I will, of course. just making clear that such an argument includes he as a potential victim.

    “You know what anarchy is? it’s the 6th grade playground your whole life! where’s your Eris now? and gimme your beer money!”

  21. David
    David November 28, 2005 at 12:14 am |

    Joel’s right. Wouldn’t you rather hang out with bedbugs than meet the guys who write this shit?

  22. Lauren
    Lauren November 28, 2005 at 12:23 am |

    David, how can you tell the difference? Do the bedbugs have hair that bad?

  23. the15th
    the15th November 28, 2005 at 12:29 am |

    His blog runs advertisements from Elliott Wave International. I wonder if they’re familiar with its content, and whether that’s the kind of image they want to project.

  24. karpad
    karpad November 28, 2005 at 12:39 am |

    Do the bedbugs have hair that bad?

    never seen a bedbug who thought a haircut was slapping a trout on their head, so yeah, begbugs have better hair.

    and they suck alot less blood.

  25. mythago
    mythago November 28, 2005 at 12:50 am |

    It gets him attention, which is what he really wants.

    What really puzzles me is his wife. Is she really sitting there thinking “Of course, my honeybun means women OTHER than me”?

  26. kate
    kate November 28, 2005 at 1:05 am |

    This guy might fancy himself a conservative, but misogyny and sexism isn’t a right-wing monopoly:

    “The sad truth is, Hillary is the front runner.

    And I hate it.
    1. She has a vagina. Vaginas are in these days.
    2. She has name recognition. Mary Minivan can make an easy choice in the booth, then get back to Oprah or Ellen.
    [irrelevant bits snipped]”
    http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/11/27/11454/298/31#31

    Or this in regards to rape:
    “…they’re taking up valuable space on the Rec list, and confirming our image as a bunch of whining weaklings….And it IS whining, especially on a political blog.”
    “Rape is an important topic but the self-righteousness and self-pity of what Kos calls the “women’s studies crowd” is pretty tiresome sometimes. 4 recommended diaries?”
    “Rape is not a laughing matter, unless of course, you’re raping a clown.”
    “Why does this not stop being funny? I laugh every time I read it!”
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/21/84633/458
    “its like good lord, give it a rest. woman rape. woman rape part deux. man rape. child rape. what’s next – pet rape, clown rape?”
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/21/05857/967

    “I have a hint for any college that wants to actively attract men: no man is interested in your mandatory gender sensitivity seminar. Zero. Also no man appreciates having Rape Awareness Week, every week. I’d say a good 99.9995% of us are not rapists and never will be, so we’d really not like to hear about the subject ever again, thanks.”
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/20/122420/25

    “If a guy taking a grab of a girls’ boob at a party the same as just doing it out somewhere else? My answer would probably be, no, it’s not the same. At a party one should expect, or at least not be surprised, by something like that. If one doesn’t want that, then dont attend activities where things like that are to be expected, whether you’re female OR male.”
    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/20/144027/53

    And remember, these are the people who call anyone who isn’t pro-choice “anti-woman” no matter their opinions on other relevant issues. *shakes head*

  27. kate
    kate November 28, 2005 at 1:09 am |

    I can’t stop myself now:
    Here’s another comment in regards to concerns about poverty,

    “What’s Wrong With More Strippers and Whores? (none / 0)
    Ok, I only just saw this thread, and this post is so far down the queue that no one will read it, but what the hell, it’s another horny Saturday night, so it seems appropriate:
    My shrink tells me to always put a positive spin on the bad things that go on in life, and here’s my positive spin on this issue.
    More Strippers and Whores!!!
    When you cut off aid to dependent children, food stamps, and health care for kids, what’s a single mom going to do to take care of her child?
    A lot of them become S&Ws. That’s a fact, Jack. Many women who need fast cash for food or a doctor for their child will hit the nudie bar or massage parlor or local street of ill repute to turn some dollars. That’s a fact, Jack.
    So when this latest fascist initiative passes into law, more chicks will pass into motel room beds or VIP room blow job booths to take care of all us lonely guys on a Saturday night (or any night, or day). That means a wider choice of size, type, flavor, and age to choose from. And, it will drive prices down, so we can pump more money into the economy.
    The women get their money, tax free, and we get off cheaper than ever. And the kids are taken care of. Sounds like a win/win/win to me. Whaddya think?”
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/4/18564/6327
    Reminds me of the diary about the “corner where LA hits rock bottom”.

  28. melanie
    melanie November 28, 2005 at 1:35 am |

    The scariest thing about this psycho is that he actually means what he writes; it’s not a parody. I pity any woman who has to have any contact with him, however minor. The depth of his misogyny is just … astounding.

  29. pansauce
    pansauce November 28, 2005 at 2:47 am |

    WHY does this fool have a platform to spew such bile?

    Because his daddy is on the board of directors of WorldNetDaily.

  30. JM
    JM November 28, 2005 at 3:05 am |

    kate,

    posting at kos and being right-wing aren’t exactly mutually exclusive. It’s a partisan site, not an ideological/progressive one, they have tens of thousands of users, and a lot of the posters are pretty right wing, not to mention the trolls, just like here.

    The worst offender in the egregious rape thread is also the captain of the Liberal Police, warning constantly that almost every politician in America is an extreme leftist, apparently in relation to his hero, Ronald Reagan, and that such far left thinking is alienating to moderates who, however, have no problem supporting someone who’s much. much farther to the right. kos to him is sort of the apogee of the hard left in America, which is laughable.

    As for the other guys in these threads, “the people who call anyone who isn’t pro-choice anti-woman, no matter their opinion on other relevant issues”? I’m not sure if that’s you commenting or something being quoted from kos, but either way, not exactly. More like the people who are either anti-choice themselves, or if they claim to be pro-choice appear to be quite hostile to pro-choice women, who they blame for holding them back. They would be more than happy to throw them over the side to woo real Americans, good god-fearing conservatives. If you poke around these types of threads regularly, anyone who cares about choice is constantly being told, not by all but by some, to shut up and care about something more important, because “their opinion on other relevant issues” is the ONLY thing that matters. The only thing someone who’s truly, harshly “anti-woman,” especially if he’s got a good opinion in some other area, would likely get from some of these guys is a pat on the back and a big welcome.

  31. JM
    JM November 28, 2005 at 3:06 am |

    kate,

    posting at kos and being right-wing aren’t exactly mutually exclusive. It’s a partisan site, not an ideological/progressive one, they have tens of thousands of users, and a lot of the posters are pretty right wing, not to mention the trolls, just like here.

    The worst offender in the egregious rape thread is also the captain of the Liberal Police, warning constantly that almost every politician in America is an extreme leftist, apparently in relation to his hero, Ronald Reagan, and that such far left thinking is alienating to moderates who, however, have no problem supporting someone who’s much. much farther to the right. kos to him is sort of the apogee of the hard left in America, which is laughable.

    As for the other guys in these threads, “the people who call anyone who isn’t pro-choice anti-woman, no matter their opinion on other relevant issues”? I’m not sure if that’s you commenting or something being quoted from kos, but either way, not exactly. More like the people who are either anti-choice themselves, or if they claim to be pro-choice appear to be quite hostile to pro-choice women, who they blame for holding them back. They would be more than happy to throw them over the side to woo real Americans, good god-fearing conservatives. If you poke around these types of threads regularly, anyone who cares about choice is constantly being told, not by all but by some, to shut up and care about something more important, because “their opinion on other relevant issues” is the ONLY thing that matters. The only thing someone who’s truly, harshly “anti-woman,” especially if he’s got a good opinion in some other area, would likely get from some of these guys is a pat on the back and a big welcome.

  32. chris
    chris November 28, 2005 at 5:13 am |

    wow….just wow. will someone please shoot this man in the face?

  33. June
    June November 28, 2005 at 8:13 am |

    How nice to be told that I’m not a person but a baby machine, and that rape is not a violation of my rights but an opportunity for me to have a(nother) baby.

    It’s been particularly interesting to see how my friends who are single, non-feminist career girls are beginning to get very angry at their feminist forebears, as they begin to realize to their shock and horror that the mysogynistic neanderthals were telling them the truth all along. Men don’t give a damn about degrees, don’t care at all about a woman’s career and tend to see these things as a threat, not to themselves, but to the possibility of a romantic relationship.

    The two key things that too many women fail to grasp with regards to relationships is that men simply don’t think like women, and that the sell-by date is about 32 when it comes to dating men your own age.

    Because, of course, the whole point of feminism is to help (straight) women snag a man.

  34. Julia
    Julia November 28, 2005 at 9:21 am |

    I don’t know where to start.

    It’s been particularly interesting to see how my friends who are single, non-feminist career girls are beginning to get very angry at their feminist forebears, as they begin to realize to their shock and horror that the mysogynistic neanderthals were telling them the truth all along. Men don’t give a damn about degrees, don’t care at all about a woman’s career and tend to see these things as a threat, not to themselves, but to the possibility of a romantic relationship.

    The two key things that too many women fail to grasp with regards to relationships is that men simply don’t think like women, and that the sell-by date is about 32 when it comes to dating men your own age.

    Well, lets hope these “men” make sure to tell women this up front. Maybe that will eliminate them from the gene pool!

    Don’t they realize that most women don’t want to date them? That as soon as they find out the true colors, women will run for the hills?

    In all honesty, after reading this, and some of the other vile spew on his site, I feel the need to thank the Gods/Goddesses/Fates/or whatever diety there migt be, that I have never had a relationship with one of these cretins.

    And tonight, I’ll remember how lucky I am that I found a man who is a real man. Secure enough in himself to treat all women like people. Not a little boy, so insecure about his own masculinity that he must put women down to raise his own worth in his own eyes.

    Why don’t these guys just date other men, if they hate women so much?

  35. No Blood for Hubris
    No Blood for Hubris November 28, 2005 at 9:29 am |

    One does not believe this person has any actual unpaid female friends. So who is responsible for this person’s execrable misogyny? Daddy? Mommy? Phyllis Schlafly? Who failed to inform him that attending a party does not equal permission to grope?

  36. danheskett
    danheskett November 28, 2005 at 9:57 am |

    To chris:

    That’s it? you just want to shoot someone in the face because you can’t effectively deal with his or her opinion?

  37. kate
    kate November 28, 2005 at 9:59 am |

    JM – I didn’t check but I think most of these people have posted comments/diaries before, so I don’t think they’re trolls. And yes, I remember the NARAL wars, and I think a lot of it is about political strategy over ideology. I consider dailykos to be fairly left-wing – pro-environment, very antiwar, pro-legalizing drugs, some of them even consider breathalyzer tests to be a violation of one’s civil liberties. What I meant by the abortion issue is that I get the feeling many of these people think abortion is the *only* women’s issue, and think they’re not sexist, even if they have neanderthal positions on rape, women’s self determination, etc. Also it is such a big community it’s hard to gauge consensus on any one issue.

  38. R. Mildred
    R. Mildred November 28, 2005 at 10:13 am |

    Raping a Rapist? that takes skill.

    Not really, most rapists are not really good at head on confrontation, that’s why they do everything they can to stack the odds in their favor, so they rape women when they’re unconscious or after they’ve drugged them or as part of a gang or after restraining them or in a situation where they know the woman cannot fight back.

    Which is the biggest reason why the “women need to learn self defense” line is complete crap, because a woman would only get the chance to defend themselves with a gun or kung fu in the most rarest of cases or if they are very very lucky.

    And mid-rape isn’t the sort of situation where I’d want to bet on luck.

  39. Lab Kat
    Lab Kat November 28, 2005 at 10:18 am |

    I would laugh at the insanity, but these guys actually consider themselves “intellectuals.”

    I miss Darwin.

  40. Kim
    Kim November 28, 2005 at 10:36 am |

    this just makes me want to cry.

  41. Eleanor
    Eleanor November 28, 2005 at 11:08 am |

    this just makes me want to cry.

    It makes me want to find him and subject him to various measures suggested by other commenters here. Which of course he wouldn’t protest, much less tell anyone, since by his logic it would be his own stupid fault for provoking me, so I’m sure he’d follow his own advice and get over it. Because it’s not like it’s any big deal, right? Anyway, it’s obvious that he wants it – just look at the way he dresses – and if he says otherwise later on, that’ll just be because he’s ashamed of having led me on.

    (Ugh. Even pretending to think like him makes me feel tainted. What must it be like to live permanently in such a mental poison-swamp?)

  42. anne
    anne November 28, 2005 at 11:23 am |

    Wow. The man’s words sicken me. I wish, though, that you hadn’t spend any time on him – it only gives him attention, and he doesn’t deserve it.

  43. Adrienne
    Adrienne November 28, 2005 at 11:31 am |

    Don’t all personal rights end where they begin to infringe upon the rights of another? Which is why freedom of speech doesn’t extend to threats of violence, and the right to own property doesn’t include stealing your neighbor’s car?

  44. jeffliveshere
    jeffliveshere November 28, 2005 at 11:39 am |

    It’s like Ayn Rand and Pat Robertson had a love child (hate child?).

    That picture of him with the flaming sword that norbizness linked to pretty much sums the guy up, I’d say.

  45. W. Kiernan
    W. Kiernan November 28, 2005 at 12:25 pm |

    kate: I can’t stop myself now:

    Here’s another comment in regards to concerns about poverty,

    “What’s Wrong With More Strippers and Whores? (none / 0)

    That was sarcasm, halfwit. The guy who posted that was not actually in favor of “cut[ting] off aid to dependent children, food stamps, and health care for kids”. Also, Jonathan Swift didn’t really advocate cooking and eating Irish babies. Durrr.

    V.D.: It’s been particularly interesting to see how my friends who are single, non-feminist career girls…

    BZZZT! “V.D.” has no female friends at all, guaranteed. And boy oh boy, is he ever pissed off about it! And it’s all their fault.

    Funny, I saw this:

    The two key things that too many women fail to grasp with regards to relationships is that men simply don’t think like women…

    and did a double-take; at first glance I thought I read

    …men simply don’t like women

    I was startled by the uncharacteristic honesty…

  46. a nut
    a nut November 28, 2005 at 12:44 pm |

    “The silence of women in the church” also means women are to be silent in politics as well. What goes for the metaphysical sphere goes for the physical sphere. No females are to be in politics nor vote.

    Those who reject the Scriptures, reject the way of life. Sadly, it is the Churches that lead their followers onto the way of Death—and that is exactly what Western Society is doing—following the Way of Death.

    This same commenter also complains that Islam is taking over the world. And clearly, Islam is evil — just look at the way they treat women! Oh wait.

    Not to mention that this is taking the “Scriptures” way out of context and obviously forgetting Women were the main voices and/or prophesizers of Christianity to begin with … ’til they were silenced of course.

  47. Sarah
    Sarah November 28, 2005 at 12:51 pm |

    I made the mistake of posting a comment in that idiotic blog, I used some science to refute some of the idiotic notions these folks have, they haven’t attempted to reply or refute them though…….

  48. badgerbag
    badgerbag November 28, 2005 at 12:56 pm |

    Could we please track down the real life name, photo, address of that dude? I have never wanted to out some one so much. We need to find that guy, and interview him, and get mainstream press and TV to publish photos of him with those quotes. Also, we need to call his mom. I was outed. It wasn’t pleasant. Turn the fucking tables on these assholes. See how they like it when everyone in their hometown knows they think that rape is okay. Oh also I like the idea of sending him books like “Lucky”. Clearly he and commenters need some educating.

    My god. I have not gone to a Take Back the Night march in a while. I guess we all should.

  49. Eleanor
    Eleanor November 28, 2005 at 1:10 pm |

    Here’s a thought. Their argument is that women must “protect” themselves by staying out of potentially dangerous situations (and since most rapists target people they know, this means not having contact with *any* men, especially your male relatives) and not dressing sexily, because men just can’t control themselves. Now who else supposedly argues that women should avoid all men and shouldn’t dress to attract them? Yes, it’s those scary extremist second-wave feminists! So why would people who claim to hate feminism be pushing this ultra-“feminist” line that men are inferior beasts and that women should shun them? Have we actually discovered an underground movement of implacable manhaters spewing out anti-male separationist rhetoric? Does Vox Day secretly hate and resent his maleness and seek to bring down the ridicule of others upon it? (If so, he’s doing a damn good job…)

  50. the15th
    the15th November 28, 2005 at 1:17 pm |

    Could we please track down the real life name, photo, address of that dude?

    I think his name, Theodore Beale, is pretty much out there already (and his photo is in post 4 of this thread.) I definitely think it’s fair game to go after his advertisers. Elliott Wave International appears to be a legitimate company, and they might rethink their sponsorship of his blog if they were aware of what it contained.

  51. evil_fizz
    evil_fizz November 28, 2005 at 1:20 pm |

    a nut: I seem to recall VD having an article a while back about how women shouldn’t have the right to vote, but that was because women aren’t libertarian and letting us vote wastes everyone’s money.

    his bile knows no bounds.

  52. a nut
    a nut November 28, 2005 at 1:28 pm |

    If sex without written permission is a crime, then all sex is rape and all men are unrepentant criminals.

    Actually, all sex being rape is exactly what Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon theorized….so it’s strange that he just agreed to a staunch anti-porn feminist.

  53. piny
    piny November 28, 2005 at 1:48 pm |

    Actually, all sex being rape is exactly what Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon theorized….so it’s strange that he just agreed to a staunch anti-porn feminist.

    This is complete bullshit. Here’s an explanation.

  54. Thomas
    Thomas November 28, 2005 at 1:51 pm |

    Badgerbag, it is my understanding that Mr. Beale is a rich boy living on family money in Italy.

  55. PanJack
    PanJack November 28, 2005 at 2:07 pm |

    Rape is to sex
    what
    Vox Day’s posting is to intellectual discourse

  56. JillK.
    JillK. November 28, 2005 at 2:08 pm |

    Heh. He looks afraid of that flaming sword! Thanks, norbizness!

  57. No Blood for Hubris
    No Blood for Hubris November 28, 2005 at 2:37 pm |

    theo@eternalwarriors.com. is TB’s contact., if this is the guy. He claims to be a Christian writer. I must have missed something. Was Jesus pro-rape?

  58. No Blood for Hubris
    No Blood for Hubris November 28, 2005 at 2:45 pm |

    A little Googling reveals unhappiness with women even voting:

    “Now, if women’s suffrage has had no effect on society, why would anyone object to it being eliminated? If it has had an effect, then what are those effects? Surely women have made some difference somewhere in 84 years! As for a specific description of the relationship, I thought it was obvious by implication, but apparently some people couldn’t follow it.

    1. For whatever reason, women are inclined to favor security, (as represented by interventionist government), over freedom, (as represented by limited government.)
    2. Women were given the right to vote in the USA in 1920.
    3. Since 1920, women have reliably voted for politicians at all levels who are dedicated to increasing government intervention in society.
    4. Government intervention in society has increased significantly since 1920.
    5. Among the consequences of this increased government intervention is the forcing of women into the workplace and increased stress on the family due to steadily increasing inflation and taxes.
    6. The resultant familial stress combined with the increased financial independence of women created an increased desire for divorce, the rate of which began to rise quickly ten years after women began entering the work force en masse. The combination also led to the development of modern feminist ideology, the direct result of which was widespread and legalized abortion and increased illegitimacy as more and more women substituted dependence on the government for dependence on an invididual man and her extended family for food, shelter and childcare.
    7. The doubling of women entering the work force finally surpassed the two-thirds of 65+ men leaving the work force, (who were leaving as a result of the Social Security entitlement granted by the interventionist government), leading to the peaking of real wages in 1973. This has only increased the aforementioned stress, as it is now impossible for a single median wage earner to support a family.

    Now, it is clear that women’s suffrage is not the only factor operative here, but given women’s reliable 9-12 percent bias towards increased government intervention and the average margin of victory in presidential, gubernatorial and senatorial elections, they can reasonably be considered a decisive factor.”

  59. norbizness
    norbizness November 28, 2005 at 2:48 pm |

    It’s a sword with flames Photo-shopped in, Jill. He’s “actor-ating”! Actually, he’s not half as scared of that sword as I am of this self–description of his fantasy novel:

    “The War in Heaven can perhaps be thought of as a retelling of John Milton’s Paradise Lost by C.S. Lewis if he’d played a lot of Warhammer while listening to Metallica.”

    Throw in a grade-3 concussion, crystal meth, and pathological megalomania, and you’re on to something.

  60. Renee
    Renee November 28, 2005 at 2:59 pm |

    I was the one that said it was difficult to rape a struggling, dry woman. And that’s all I meant by that, because it’s damn true.

    Have you ever done rape play? I have, with guys twice my weight with martial arts training. I actually had to restrict my own resistance just to make the whole damn thing possible. And when I’m not wet enough it’s impossible to insert the penis in the vagina, and I mean impossible physically, regardless of pain.

    Of course you can rape a wet woman, just as you can rape an erect man. All rape is a violation of property and self ownership. However, it is nessecary to treat the above cases as exactly the same, with special additives for pregnancy or STDs.

  61. Army of Mom
    Army of Mom November 28, 2005 at 3:10 pm |

    No, this asshole does not reflect the opinions of conservative males, trust me. My husband doesn’t agree with this crap either. And, having been the victim of rape, I am greatly offended. I don’t consider myself a victim, but I guess I should have just given it up if the guy wanted it. What a bunch of shit. And, you know what happens to raped women in the Middle East? You’ll love this. They are FORCED to marry their rapist. There are women over there who have to marry these sorry SOBs because it is what their religion deems as appropriate. Even if they were married to someone else. They have to leave that marriage and marry the rapist. Makes me sick.

    I don’t read this sorry slug’s tripe for this very reason. Just makes me sick and embarrasses the hell out of me that someone may lump me into the same “conservative” category with this jerk who DOES NOT share my views.

  62. flea
    flea November 28, 2005 at 3:21 pm |

    Actually, all sex being rape is exactly what Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon theorized

    No, no, no, no, NO.

    This is absolutely, totally false.

    Also, I agree with Anne who posted earlier that what he’s trying to do is punch women in the face using the internet. Everytime you and Amanda Marcotte scream “Ouch!” he knows he made a hit. I wish you’d quit giving him what he wants.

  63. Frederick
    Frederick November 28, 2005 at 3:22 pm |

    Yes, in a profound and awesome way, rape is actually the possibility for life, whereas the other crimes – stealing, lying, murdering – are all about destruction.

    Does that mean rapists are “pro-lifers”? It figures.

  64. Robert
    Robert November 28, 2005 at 3:52 pm |

    Ah, Vox Day, the Ted Rall of the conservative side. What a charming, charming specimen of humanity.

    Hey, I know. Let’s start pairing off execrable exemplars of particular philosophies, and exiling them to desert islands together. We can stop once the level of discourse becomes livable. Ted Rall and Vox Day; Cindy Sheehan and David Duke, and so forth.

  65. Sophist
    Sophist November 28, 2005 at 4:16 pm |

    “The War in Heaven can perhaps be thought of as a retelling of John Milton’s Paradise Lost by C.S. Lewis…”

    Yeah, and my first-grade finger paintings were like Jackson Pollock as interpreted by Pablo Picasso.

    What a jackass.

    And when I’m not wet enough it’s impossible to insert the penis in the vagina, and I mean impossible physically, regardless of pain.

    So you took one data point and extrapolated it out to all women, everywhere? How scientific.

  66. Josh Jasper
    Josh Jasper November 28, 2005 at 4:16 pm |

    Army Of Mom: No, this asshole does not reflect the opinions of conservative males,

    Like hell he dosen’t, he’s the son of the owner of one of the larger online conservative media outlets. It’s your hubby who’s not representative.

  67. flea
    flea November 28, 2005 at 4:18 pm |

    …and you and Michael Moore, while we’re at it.

    Jill, I do understand, but in Vox Day’s case I don’t think ignoring him is hiding and hoping he’ll go away. I really think he posts what he does because causing women pain gives him a hard-on.

    Look at that wacky nut Carey Roberts. He says the same ridiculous things Vox Day says, but he says it because he really believes it. Rip on his ideology all you want. Go after Doug Giles and Pastor Swank and Dobson and Falwell and all of those guys. With this one particular person, though, I just wish you’d give him one less thing to beat off over, that’s all.

  68. Thomas
    Thomas November 28, 2005 at 4:18 pm |

    Robert, I thought the Ted Rall/Vox Day comparison was strained, but not outside the bounds of reason. Comparing Cindy Sheehan to David Duke, however …

  69. Caitlin
    Caitlin November 28, 2005 at 4:19 pm |

    Impossible to have sex with a dry vagina? Whatever. Just ask the men of Africa, who like their women to rub their vaginas with herbs to dry them out, because the feeling of friction provided by a dry vagina lets one feel like one has a huge dick.

    And then there is AbsorbShun…..basically, corn startch in vaginal powder form, meant to dry up ‘wetness’ in preparation for sex. So really, I don’t know where you get this idea that it’s impossible to fuck a dry vagina. But then again, you read Vox Day and you defend him, so it’s fairly evident you are lacking in cognitive ability and rational thought.

  70. Bill from INDC
    Bill from INDC November 28, 2005 at 4:30 pm |

    Comparing Cindy Sheehan to David Duke, however …

    Well, they both certainly dislike the secret cabal of Zionists ostensibly pulling the strings of our government, so says the public record.

  71. Robert
    Robert November 28, 2005 at 4:38 pm |

    Yeah, but Cindy is against war and bad men like George Bush, and her son Casey (did you know she had a son?) died, so, you know, she only engages in the good kind of Jew-hate.

  72. Dianne
    Dianne November 28, 2005 at 4:41 pm |

    And, you know what happens to raped women in the Middle East? You’ll love this. They are FORCED to marry their rapist.

    Mildly off topic, but wasn’t there a case a couple of years ago in which a woman charged her boyfriend with abuse and the judge in the case ordered them to get married?

  73. evil_fizz
    evil_fizz November 28, 2005 at 4:44 pm |

    Of course you can rape a wet woman, just as you can rape an erect man.

    So if the victim is not sexually aroused and there’s no vaginal intercourse, it’t not rape? The hell?

    All rape is a violation of property and self ownership.

    The body is not property and rape is not a property crime, full stop.

  74. EricP
    EricP November 28, 2005 at 4:53 pm |

    Actually, all sex being rape is exactly what Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon theorized….so it’s strange that he just agreed to a staunch anti-porn feminist.

    This is complete bullshit. Here’s an explanation.

    I used to believe that was what she was saying as well. It is a common myth. Having done more research on the subject (after reading an article where she denied the claim) I found her position more nuanced but unfortunately it ends up coming back to the beginning. I have not read her books but I have read quite a few sites defending the common quotes and giving the context.

    The point she seemed to be trying to make was that in the presence of the patriarchy and a culture focussed on men’s sexuality, sex becomes a means of debasing women, of making her the “bottom”. Even the terminology used, “a women being penetrated”, “screwing”, “fucking” all describe actions happening to a woman instead of actions that represent consentual activity where people are doing things together. As the article linked to mentions, we tend to think of it as “‘penetration’ of the woman by the man, rather than ‘engulfing’ of the man by the woman”. In this type of culture, sex for women is something that is being done to her to perpetuate her lower role. Not quite rape obviously, but still a negative thing.

    The problem is that in as far as sex goes, a lot of society still has hang ups about female sexuality. How many father worry about their teenage sons having sex versus, their daughters? How many men are looked down upon for having many partners compared to similar women? Given this continuing context, her argument that most/all intercourse is debasing to women still holds as far as her own logic is concerned.

    The logic falls apart however because many women enjoy being penetrated and they enjoy getting fucked. They enjoy giving up control and accepting sexual attention and pleasure. Most (western) sex involes men on top and women on the bottom. Given the continued patriarchy, this is supposed to be debasing.

    Most women get more pleasure from clitoral stimulation. However when another person is involved, it comes down to another person going down on her or massaging her with his hand. Still actions that involve a man doing something to her. He may enjoy doing these things but he is still doing something to the woman and she is playing the passive role and should feel debased (according to the logic of Dworkin).

    Her argument isn’t that most sex is rape but rather that all sex given the current culture is debasing to women. Since most men and women would heartily disagree, I don’t have any qualms about disregarding her thinking on this point.

  75. Tanooki Joe
    Tanooki Joe November 28, 2005 at 5:01 pm |

    The body is not property and rape is not a property crime, full stop.

    In classical liberal theory (at least from what I remember of Locke), the source of all property rights is the right of bodily autonomy, since your own body (and the labor it produces, which is the basis of wealth yadda yadda) is your only true possession. Thus, from such a standpoint, rape would be a property crime, since it is a crime against the property of the woman*, namely, her body.

    Of course, under such a strained reading, any crime would be a property crime, which would remove any practical benefits from making such a distinction.

    Ah, philosophy.

    * Further proof that VD has no understanding of his own fucking position.

  76. piny
    piny November 28, 2005 at 5:22 pm |

    Most women get more pleasure from clitoral stimulation. However when another person is involved, it comes down to another person going down on her or massaging her with his hand. Still actions that involve a man doing something to her. He may enjoy doing these things but he is still doing something to the woman and she is playing the passive role and should feel debased (according to the logic of Dworkin).

    Her argument isn’t that most sex is rape but rather that all sex given the current culture is debasing to women. Since most men and women would heartily disagree, I don’t have any qualms about disregarding her thinking on this point.

    Not at all, any more than a woman should feel that getting pregnant means that she is opting into every patriarchal meaning ascribed to pregnancy. The point Dworkin is making is that those ideas–female sexuality is nothing more than the passive counterpart to male pleasure, penetration is debasing, etc.–exist, and that they are important aspects of any analysis of womanhood as defined by patriarchy. The last bit is very important. In other words, “This is how these actions are interpreted,” not, “This is what these actions mean.”

    Take your example, which seems to me to be an erroneous analogy. The act you described, which has as its goal a woman’s pleasure independent of a male partner’s, doesn’t fit into patriarchal sexuality at all. It’s not that women lie back while they’re serviced; it’s that they lie back while they’re used. And the fact that we do include that kind of touch in our definition of sex itself indicates that sex has greater current possibilities than the narrow, male-centered patriarchal definition.

  77. EricP
    EricP November 28, 2005 at 5:25 pm |

    I don’t generally read blogs or websites off of the beaten path. What is the point of reading nuts preaching to each other? I think highlighting this kind of crap is a positive thing though. Jill’s pointing to this guy’s blog and the comments allows us to see what the rapists are thinking. Getting inside a rapist’s head might be unpleasant but might potentially help in stopping actual rapes.

  78. cory
    cory November 28, 2005 at 5:54 pm |

    As a childless-by-choice possessor of fully-functioning Y-chromosomes who is married to a PhD-bearing science-doin’ woman, let me just say: Vox is a demented idjit.

  79. evil_fizz
    evil_fizz November 28, 2005 at 5:57 pm |

    Tanooki Joe: If you follow VD’s analysis, that should mean I’m free to beat him sensless with a 2 by 4. If rape’s just a property crime, so’s battery. And if there are no property rights, then, well, he might want to find himself a hard hat because I have a feeling I’m not the only one thinking longingly of a 2 by 4 when reading his noxious rants.

  80. Thomas
    Thomas November 28, 2005 at 6:20 pm |

    Robert, while antisemitism is usually a sufficient condition for opposing Israel, opposition to Israel is not a sufficient condition for a diagnosis of antisemitism. The statement, “I do not think that America should expend military resources in an effort that better serves Israel’s security interests than our own” is obviously different from the statement, “I hate Jews.” (Neither is a statement that I would agree with. I’m pretty strongly pro-Israel.)

    David Duke’s background leads any reasonable person to a different conclusion. He didn’t, for example, merely oppose military intervention in Africa. He was a leader of the Ku Klux Klan.

    Frankly, Robert, that comparison is not only desperate, but a bad, canned talking point. I’m tempted to say that I thought better of you, but that would be a lie.

  81. EricP
    EricP November 28, 2005 at 6:55 pm |

    Take your example, which seems to me to be an erroneous analogy. The act you described, which has as its goal a woman’s pleasure independent of a male partner’s, doesn’t fit into patriarchal sexuality at all. It’s not that women lie back while they’re serviced; it’s that they lie back while they’re used. And the fact that we do include that kind of touch in our definition of sex itself indicates that sex has greater current possibilities than the narrow, male-centered patriarchal definition.

    I probably shouldn’t have included this point since it confused my point. I never took a debate class;-). I must remember, be careful what you say to piny, she is smarter than you are;-).

    My point was that the patriarchy still exists as defined by feminists and many women enjoy intercourse even lacking in “foreplay” (in quotes for obvious reasons) as long as they are physically prepared. They may be submitting to “their men” and living in a patriarchy but many women do enjoy sexuality that involves submission to men. If they willing accept this submission and derive enjoyment from it, is it really debasing?

    Personally as a man I wouldn’t be interrested in a woman whose sexuality was so passive but I also reject judging such women as being debased.

    “Intercourse” was written in a different time of course but Dworkin’s arguments are still referenced today which doesn’t make her points totally dated.

  82. Robert
    Robert November 28, 2005 at 6:59 pm |

    I’m sorry your critical thinking skills don’t apply to Cindy Sheehan, Thomas. Being able to spot evil people who are using your well-intentioned political positions as cover for their own vileness is a crucial skill. Unfortunately, one that’s been all too lacking on the left.

  83. Lauren
    Lauren November 28, 2005 at 7:07 pm |

    Robert, I can’t find any real evidence that Sheehan is heading up a real movement of anything, so much as providing herself as an anti-Bush tool for the media — and one whose fifteen minutes is waning at that. That’s a lot different than David fucking Duke. This means, then, that Robert et al’s anti-Sheehan stuff is, well, misplaced and kind of old.

  84. Robert
    Robert November 28, 2005 at 7:23 pm |

    Lauren, there’s no evidence of David Duke running any real movement, either. Fifty losers with a fax machine and a copier, so what? He can’t even get elected in Louisiana, for God’s sake. But “the media” has told you that David Duke is Satan (and he is an evil fucker), while telling you that Cindy Sheehan is just a sad mom with an agenda – so you think of him as “David fucking Duke” instead of being a sad loser with an agenda.

    Critical thinking reveals Sheehan and Duke to be on pretty much the same page, I opine. Duke just has a longer track record.

  85. derivative work  » Blog Archive   » good reading [november edition]

    [...] aught my eye this month, relatively uncommented-upon and in no particular order: 11/28: feministe takes on the pro-rape — really [...]

  86. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke November 28, 2005 at 7:51 pm |

    Being able to spot evil people who are using your well-intentioned political positions as cover for their own vileness is a crucial skill.

    It’s always good for a laugh when Robert has his rhetorical footstool yanked out from underneath him.

  87. kate
    kate November 28, 2005 at 7:51 pm |

    W Kiernan – It’s hard to tell what’s serious and what’s not sometimes, especially on the internet when there’s no tone and often little context. I assume that most people at dailykos are opposed to the Republican budget, but that this person was trying to make fun of the situation and prostitution/stripping … I don’t advocate censoring anyone, but from what I’ve read at this blog and other places, I can’t find streetwalking funny anymore. Not to mention that such a viewpoint would be in line with the sexist attitudes and comments I’ve seen there from other people.

    Robert – can you please provide some quotes/evidence other than Ms Sheehan’s opposition to Israeli foreign policy? I think someone can oppose a policy or regime but not also be racist or against a religion.

  88. Julia
    Julia November 28, 2005 at 8:09 pm |

    I was the one that said it was difficult to rape a struggling, dry woman. And that’s all I meant by that, because it’s damn true.

    Have you ever done rape play? I have, with guys twice my weight with martial arts training. I actually had to restrict my own resistance just to make the whole damn thing possible. And when I’m not wet enough it’s impossible to insert the penis in the vagina, and I mean impossible physically, regardless of pain.

    Bullshit. It’s only impossible is the man is concerned about hurting the woman. I assume in your rape play, that real pain is not the point.

    Tell me about how children are raped? How anal rapes happen.

  89. EricP
    EricP November 28, 2005 at 8:15 pm |

    Robert, I can’t find any real evidence that Sheehan is heading up a real movement of anything, so much as providing herself as an anti-Bush tool for the media — and one whose fifteen minutes is waning at that.

    To be honest I don’t spend much time following left-wing opinion any more (except for this site;-)) but in the time I have spent doing so, KOS and Salon seem to love lionizing her. They both seem to think that she is God made flesh for their anti-Bush campaigns. The MSM, except for the right-wing Fox seem to give her an awfully sympathic treatment.

  90. EricP
    EricP November 28, 2005 at 8:16 pm |

    I don’t know much about David Duke, except from some vague name recognition. He certainly sounds like an asshole though.

  91. Robert
    Robert November 28, 2005 at 8:18 pm |

    Jill, he did win election to the State House for one year, in 1989. I’d forgotten about that. Thanks; I retract that comment.

    As for Duke’s lovely CV, like I said, he has a longer track record. He’s been doing this for 30 years, versus her what, six months?

    Which is probably why he felt the need to support the youngling.

  92. Anne
    Anne November 28, 2005 at 8:23 pm |

    Robert, I would venture to say that Cindy has no control over who agrees with her and who does not.

    Can we get back on topic rather than let Robert try to further derail the thread?

  93. EricP
    EricP November 28, 2005 at 8:52 pm |

    Can we get back on topic rather than let Robert try to further derail the thread?

    Okay, maybe this will help.

    Bullshit. It’s only impossible is the man is concerned about hurting the woman.

    And presumably himself. Having had a bad experience with a non-intercourse but dry sexual activity that left me hurting for a week, I have to wonder how these guys get off on it. A penis is not as sensitive as a vagina but it is however subject to friction burns. In my mind, yet more proof that the men who do this kind of thing are seriously messed up.

  94. Tanooki Joe
    Tanooki Joe November 28, 2005 at 9:11 pm |

    Of course, they don’t seem to consider that the women may be aroused, but did not give consent.

    Oh wait, that’s not rape, it’s just “buyers remorse”. How silly of me.

    I think these people should just have these comments tattooed to their foreheads. Then we’ll see how easily they can find a date…

  95. Amanda
    Amanda November 28, 2005 at 9:31 pm |

    Also, I agree with Anne who posted earlier that what he’s trying to do is punch women in the face using the internet. Everytime you and Amanda Marcotte scream “Ouch!” he knows he made a hit. I wish you’d quit giving him what he wants.

    Agreed with Jill. I totally hear your point, and I’ll be the first to admit that sometimes my motives in pointing out these fuckheads aren’t pure…..but then I also have to point out that I get tons of emails from people who say that they never considered before how the larger casual sexism of our culture creates an enviroment where this kind of deep hatred and rape apologies can flourish. Vox is getting what he wants, which is attention, but that’s an unfortunate side effect of what I’m doing, which is trying to use him and his hatred to demonstrate the seedy underbelly of what our male dominated society allows to flourish.

    Similiarly, I think it’s useful to hold up white supremacists to the light to demonstrate to your saner readership how casual racism creates an enviroment where the hard core haters can find ways to justify themselves.

  96. The Raving Atheist
    The Raving Atheist November 28, 2005 at 9:37 pm |

    Vox enthusiastically accepted a Godidiot of the Week Award from me a couple of years ago. He has a point about you moral relativists, though.

  97. Bertson
    Bertson November 28, 2005 at 9:56 pm |
  98. Sophist
    Sophist November 28, 2005 at 9:57 pm |

    As for Duke’s lovely CV, like I said, he has a longer track record. He’s been doing this for 30 years, versus her what, six months?

    In other words, absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. Sure, there’s no proof or anything, but that doesn’t prevent you from just knowing it. Pff, whatever.

  99. karpad
    karpad November 28, 2005 at 10:29 pm |

    Bullshit. It’s only impossible is the man is concerned about hurting the woman. I assume in your rape play, that real pain is not the point.

    seconded. can’t say I’ve ever done “rape play” but I know how easy it is to break someone’s arm, and how hard it is to do ANYTHING with a freshly broken arm.

    This does not, of course, mean that “well, it wasn’t really rape unless she has a broken arm.” just “if someone wants to incapacitate you, and doesn’t care about what damage they do, it’s really, really fucking easy.”

  100. Sarah
    Sarah November 28, 2005 at 10:34 pm |

    Vox enthusiastically accepted a Godidiot of the Week Award from me a couple of years ago. He has a point about you moral relativists, though.

    Nothing more irritating than an in your face bible thumping maniac who spouts scripture like a broken faucet. The only thing worse is an out and out chauvanist. Guess what, this guy’s both. If in fact someone does find where he lives, I have some fun ideas of what to do with him involving my fencing equipment.

  101. kja
    kja November 28, 2005 at 10:47 pm |

    My point was that the patriarchy still exists as defined by feminists and many women enjoy intercourse even lacking in “foreplay” (in quotes for obvious reasons) as long as they are physically prepared. They may be submitting to “their men” and living in a patriarchy but many women do enjoy sexuality that involves submission to men. If they willing accept this submission and derive enjoyment from it, is it really debasing?

    I think you’re making the same error you say others have made regarding Dworkin, only in a more subtle form. Dworkin doesn’t say women don’t ever enjoy intercourse (although she does say many don’t); she says society conceives of intercourse as the only sex that is really sex, as mandatory (in marriage, up until quite recently, it was), and as a violent act of conquest by which a man “takes” a woman, “has” her, bangs her, fucks her, screws her…and then she’s fucked and screwed.

    The fact that *someone* enjoys or gets off on a practice isn’t really the best measure of whether the practice is good or whether everyone should have to do it. But regardless, how do you know that women who enjoy intercourse conceive of it as “submission” or passivity?

  102. bellatrys
    bellatrys November 28, 2005 at 10:52 pm |

    Do any of you oh-so-liberal-feminist Sheehan bashers actually *read* anything she says? She posts fairly regularly. Or do you just believe what the Scaife-driven press and Sludge say about her the way that everyone did about Bill Clinton the multiple murderer?

    And how many of you have gotten arrested protesting the war you hate so much? Show of hands, please – when you’ve put half as much work into, frex, publicizing the Downing Street Memos or something comparable as she did, I’ll be far more impressed with your Tacitus-like yawning.

    Yeah, we’re our own worst enemies sometimes. You gals are worried about blood Vox Day’s *feelings* – you think it’s more important not to give the miserable cockroach a little frisson of satisfaction, than to shine daylight on the wart? Than to dig him out and discredit him to the world, because in the process it might make him feel good?

    Pathetic. No wonder the Right defeated you all so easily, and continues to win despite their own incompetence.

  103. a nut
    a nut November 28, 2005 at 10:52 pm |

    Actually, all sex being rape is exactly what Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon theorized….so it’s strange that he just agreed to a staunch anti-porn feminist.

    This is complete bullshit. Here’s an explanation.

    I remember reading something from MacKinnon that said this (or so I thought). My bad. I’ve read her stuff over and over, but apparently I “misinterpreted” it. And just so you know Piny, I wasn’t trying to be snarky.

  104. mythago
    mythago November 29, 2005 at 12:52 am |

    Vox is getting what he wants, which is attention, but that’s an unfortunate side effect of what I’m doing, which is trying to use him and his hatred to demonstrate the seedy underbelly of what our male dominated society allows to flourish.

    Aren’t there plenty of other examples of vile idiocy and sexism? Ones that don’t eagerly and one-handedly click around looking for comments to their posts?

  105. piny
    piny November 29, 2005 at 2:09 am |

    I remember reading something from MacKinnon that said this (or so I thought). My bad. I’ve read her stuff over and over, but apparently I “misinterpreted” it. And just so you know Piny, I wasn’t trying to be snarky.

    Sorry. This comes up a lot. Don’t think I’m saying that MacKinnon and Dworkin aren’t radical–just that this isn’t what they meant.

    My point was that the patriarchy still exists as defined by feminists and many women enjoy intercourse even lacking in “foreplay” (in quotes for obvious reasons) as long as they are physically prepared. They may be submitting to “their men” and living in a patriarchy but many women do enjoy sexuality that involves submission to men. If they willing accept this submission and derive enjoyment from it, is it really debasing?

    Just so you know, Eric, I’m an ftm and I go by male pronouns.

    I don’t think that Dworkin is saying that intercourse is debasing or pleasure-less in some objective sense, or that the patriarchy’s set of meanings are the only ones anyone may ever pay attention to. Feminists* differ on the question of what kinds of sexuality are and are not debasing–and what can be considered “willing” in a society where women’s choices are so constrained and female sexuality so defined in terms of male pleasure. It’s entirely possible to sincerely enjoy what you’ve been brought up to enjoy, and to sincerely value what you’ve been taught to value. Feminism doesn’t describe those feelings as false, rather as the product of a system that’s bad for women and therefore unjustifiable.

    *Mind, they also differ on whether or not they all deserve to be called feminists.

    I think you’re making the same error you say others have made regarding Dworkin, only in a more subtle form. Dworkin doesn’t say women don’t ever enjoy intercourse (although she does say many don’t); she says society conceives of intercourse as the only sex that is really sex, as mandatory (in marriage, up until quite recently, it was), and as a violent act of conquest by which a man “takes” a woman, “has” her, bangs her, fucks her, screws her…and then she’s fucked and screwed.

    Great comment. I wish I could have put it this eloquently.

  106. allun
    allun November 29, 2005 at 9:18 am |

    IIRC, rape is a crime of violence, not passion. Always (almost) committed by men. So what drives violence? Anger? Frustration?
    Men have the experience of being on the short end of the sexual capitol divide. Some boys get shunned/ridiculed/avoided by the girls in their social circle as they grow to manhood. Would that cause some anger? Not saying it’s all the fault of women, but some cultures didn’t/don’t have ANY such thing as rape, (until contaminated by westerns). My opinion is: If our culture weren’t so tight-assed about this subject, we’d have less rape. (and if all boys of a certain age were getting laid, we’d have NO rape!)

  107. A Pang
    A Pang November 29, 2005 at 11:13 am |

    Say what allun? You seem to be arguing that the violence which motivates rape is produced by frustrated lust, and therefore rape is caused by frustrated lust. Or, to state it plainly, men are rapists because they didn’t get dates in high school.

    Yeah, that’s really going to fly here…

  108. piny
    piny November 29, 2005 at 12:36 pm |

    Duh. Everyone knows that rapists become what they are because girls were mean to them in middle school.

    You know, I had a pretty frustrated and lonely adolescence, and I’m almost absolutely sure I’ve never raped, violated, or assaulted anyone. In fact, most of the men I know are celibate and lonely sometimes, and they still don’t seem terribly interested in attacking women.

    Maybe there’s something wrong with them.

  109. Brenna
    Brenna November 29, 2005 at 1:28 pm |

    It has been a while but I believe Locke also defended (apologized, rationalized) the practice of slavery by saying that those people who are incapable of defending their property (their bodies) forfeit their natural rights to that property.

    This is actually a common thread in the thinking of “libertarians” that we have only those rights we can physically defend.

    Might makes Rights I suppose.

  110. EricP
    EricP November 29, 2005 at 1:49 pm |

    Just so you know, Eric, I’m an ftm and I go by male pronouns

    Thanks for the correction. I’ve only been posting here for a month and still trying to learn who everyone is. I’ll try to remember to use male pronouns. Also, you didn’t mention it yourself but I didn’t think you came across as “snarky”. I made a badly statement “argument”, you called me on it. Not hit, no foul. My reply was an attempt at humor. I’ve been told that I’m not good at humor;-).

    It’s entirely possible to sincerely enjoy what you’ve been brought up to enjoy, and to sincerely value what you’ve been taught to value. Feminism doesn’t describe those feelings as false, rather as the product of a system that’s bad for women and therefore unjustifiable.

    That is pretty much what I wanted to say, but you’ve said it better. kja said it very well too. You’ve refined my point for me.

  111. Donna
    Donna November 29, 2005 at 1:50 pm |

    The primary reason I keep the fact that I have been raped to myself, except in this unusual case, is that there are people out there who may think I deserved it. I was 18, out for a walk before I joined my grandparents for evening mass, when I was pulled behind a tree by a man, not much older than myself. He held a knife to my neck and threatened my life should I yell. I think one could hardly call that “welcome” sex. For two years after the event, I suffered from traumatic stress syndrome (nightmares, panic attacks…etc.). Today, many years later, I am still afraid of strange men who approach me, even if all they want is the time. My life was changed forever the day I was raped. And, it changed not in just one way, but in many. No man has the right to alter a woman’s life like that. Not now. Not ever. I can only hope the men who have left these comments are a scarce breed. God help us all, if they are not.

  112. flea
    flea November 29, 2005 at 3:21 pm |

    Mythago put it very well up in Comment 107 – there are about a zillion other fine illustrations one can use to point out the need for feminism. My preference to let this particular one shrivel up and die alone has nothing to do with hiding and everything to do with the fact that you can practically hear him at the computer screaming, “Mama! Mama! Look how meeeeeeannnn I am! Can I have a cookie now?”

    He reminds me of the 19-year-old schizophrenic from the U.K. that lived in his mother’s basement and set up a web site calling for the assassination of all feminists, and named bloggers like Trish Wilson specifically. I think he was shut down pretty quick after the women listed on the web site called the police, and he’s back on his medication, but I would have also preferred that you not to give him any attention, either, if you were doing so.

  113. Lauren
    Lauren November 29, 2005 at 3:54 pm |

    Flea, that guy targeted me too. I contacted DC Comics for his use of a copyrighted superhero to illustrate his feminist hit list.

  114. Lauren
    Lauren November 29, 2005 at 4:11 pm |

    Not DC, some other one. He used The Punisher, if I remember correctly.

  115. Thomas
    Thomas November 29, 2005 at 4:21 pm |

    Marvel.

  116. Lauren
    Lauren November 29, 2005 at 4:46 pm |

    Thank you. Obviously I was never a comic book reader.

  117. Cho
    Cho November 29, 2005 at 4:47 pm |

    Got some bad news for you Jill. Read the comments on Vox’s website- you realise most of the commenters there aren’t decent people after all.
    Assholes.

  118. Cruella
    Cruella November 29, 2005 at 5:10 pm |

    I get this on my blog, not quite so bad as this usually (though I have banned a few for lesser things!). What gets me is this idea that there is a “victim mentality”, that people are choosing to be victims and that being a victim is something to be ashamed of. Victims aren’t the problem, criminals are. It’s the criminal mentality that society needs to address.

  119. BEG
    BEG November 29, 2005 at 5:58 pm |

    Honestly? I just had to laugh at his bile. Hey, he’s upfront about it. You don’t have to waste any time, just check him off and call out NEXT! The ones I have much more trouble with are the ones who are mysogynist but don’t believe that they are — for example what they say and do diverge. I can go batshit crazy trying to sort that out. So this is kind of refreshing, actually. Ha. Out of the gene pool, out of the friend pool, out of all the pools, sucker. NEXT.

    More seriously, though, given all the noise he makes about his god given right to fuck women when, where, and how he wants, he’s probably afraid to actually touch anyone in real life. Just that heavy imagination of his dominating, swooping personality. Or something.

  120. flea
    flea November 29, 2005 at 7:37 pm |

    No shit, Lauren, really? Yikes. He was one seriously unhinged little toad. He used to hang out at the defunct NOW boards back in the day – around 2000, 2001 – under the name ANALOG WORMS (caps his idea). He would yelp about executing feminists and of course the trolls over there thought it was hilarious and egged him on.

  121. Bob King
    Bob King November 29, 2005 at 8:33 pm |

    Speaking as an Endowed American Male, I have to confess that rape is a non-starter. I managed to sprain my unit once with a COOPERATING partner, so the idea of putting that sort of leverege in a wildly gyrating, unco-operative oriface scares the hell out of me.

    But I am told that this is not true of the “average male” of six inches – and less. Diamond hard, no flex, no problem ramming it into anything, willing or no.

    So here’s the obvious conclusion. Randy Vox is an Underhung American. Or he has very high blood pressure, and darwin will be calling soon.

  122. nyc007
    nyc007 November 29, 2005 at 9:29 pm |

    You all are missing the point entirely. Vox never said half of the things you think he did, and if any of you bothered to read the other blogs leading up to this one, you’ d see that. Vox’s commentators are FAR from myrmidons- most of them argue with Vox every day. But they are (most of them) rational, logical, and even tempered, forcing you to think about positions. Read the comments here and all but a few agree with each other. Guess diversity only works when they all think alike, right? Keep writing, though. You’ve already proven the point about womyn- it’s just fun now to see how deep you entrench to the caricature.

  123. Norah
    Norah November 29, 2005 at 10:09 pm |

    I’ve read this asshole before, and a common theme is: 1.) Vox says some unbelievably misogynistic shit (women can’t write sci-fi, there’s no such thing as date rape). Then 2.) a bunch of people call him on it . 3.) Vox claims he never ever said that and if you think he did you are not very intelligent and possibly have a reading comprehension disorder. Then 4.) the minions leap to his defense. I mean Spacebunny in particular; she is a piece of work. She defends his notion that if you consent to having sex with a man, then change your mind and he doesn’t stop when you ask him, there is really no crime. And apparently there must be some sort of time limit as well, I don’t know. He stopped making sense a long time ago.

    I feel dirty.

  124. evil_fizz
    evil_fizz November 29, 2005 at 10:29 pm |

    But they are (most of them) rational, logical, and even tempered, forcing you to think about positions.

    *falls over laughing*

    Keep writing, though. You’ve already proven the point about womyn- it’s just fun now to see how deep you entrench to the caricature.

    Well, you guys have cornered the market on freakish rape apologists, so we’ve got to carve out our own market, although the heading is actually “sane, reasonable human beings with a notion of decency.” Sorry to use so many words you’re unfamilar with.

  125. kc
    kc November 29, 2005 at 11:50 pm |

    it is actually extremely difficult to rape a struggling, dry woman.

    God knows, he’s tried . . .

  126. stacer
    stacer November 29, 2005 at 11:54 pm |

    common theme is: 1.) Vox says some unbelievably misogynistic shit (women can’t write sci-fi, there’s no such thing as date rape). Then 2.) a bunch of people call him on it . 3.) Vox claims he never ever said that and if you think he did you are not very intelligent and possibly have a reading comprehension disorder. Then 4.) the minions leap to his defense.

    Norah, I know how you feel, and this is exactly the tactic he used on me yesterday, and how his little helpers are continuing to treat me. I had a nice quiet, personal little LJ, posted what I thought was an innocent question to a friend that reads my LJ, and suddenly the crazies came out of the woodwork. I had to take off anonymous posting, which means half my friends and all my family won’t be able to post. I thought if I said nothing, it’d blow over, and perhaps today he’s gone on to something else, but not before vilifying a friend of mine in a subsequent post. And I’d never even been to his site before yesterday or whatever day it was I posted my question.

  127. kc
    kc November 29, 2005 at 11:57 pm |

    Renee Says:
    November 28th, 2005 at 2:59 pm
    I was the one that said it was difficult to rape a struggling, dry woman. And that’s all I meant by that, because it’s damn true.

    Oh, my bad. I thought Vox Day was the author of that dumb-ass statement. You’re the culprit.

    Have you ever done “rape play” with someone with a loaded gun? No? Then shut the fuck up.

  128. Beth
    Beth November 30, 2005 at 5:40 am |

    (Disclosure: I haven’t read through all the comments yet, and it’s very, very late.)

    OK. First question, what on earth are you doing at that vile site?

    Did you look through his archives? He’s the most female-hating piece of shit I’ve ever seen on the internets, bar none–and I myself am very much a conservative. Frankly, anyone who identifies himself as a “Christian Libertarian” freaks me out, like a David Duke or Timothy McVeigh.

    The fact that he’s given any credence by anyone is a sad commentary on the kind of scum that roam the internet. He’s even got a regular column on World Nut Daily, which I’m sure won’t surprise you, but really, it’s even beyond the pale for a National Enquirer-style publication.

    This guy has openly proclaimed his disdain for women who aren’t barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen cookin’ up a feast for her “provider” (master of the domain, of course). His commenters are even worse–just as misogynist and otherwise hateful, but seemingly with only a fourth-grade education.

    Norah and stacer–that’s exactly what I’ve seen there, so I wouldn’t bother even questioning their stupidity. You can’t teach smart, and no blog comment from a non-regular or a regular reader at a place like that is ever going to give them pause for thought. Evil bastards like that just dig in their heels and think what YOU say confirms their insanity. They could say 2+2=5 (about as logical as the rape post, actually), and if you said, “actually, it’s 4,” they would say “see? you moron! you can’t even add! hahahaha!” and as has happened to stacer, they would all waste your entire day defecating in your comments.

    Frankly, I’m surprised that more of them (yeah, I’m talking to YOU, nyc007) haven’t slithered over here yet to attack and/or make dumbass excuses for him. If they do, I’m extending the suggestion right now to all of them to go visit a maximum security prison for a conjugal visit, and see what their opinion of rape is afterwards.

    PLEEEEEEASE don’t call Vox Day or his psychopath sycophants “conservatives.” No conservative or neocon or whatever that I’ve ever dealt with approves of his kind at all. Seriously.

  129. Beth
    Beth November 30, 2005 at 8:22 am |

    Oh, looky here. More shite from the Ladies’ Man.

    I just threw up a little in my mouth.

  130. MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy  » Blog Archive   » 2005 BadBlog Awards

    [...] HAHA, bitches! UPDATE 2: I was going to keep my opinion to myself for now, but I think I found the Worst Blog Post Ever [...]

  131. Beth
    Beth November 30, 2005 at 9:43 am |

    I’m sorry, I just can’t let go of this.
    This is priceless.
    Maybe you all already know about all this stuff I’m finding. Thanks to my Technorati Greasemonkey script for Firefox, I’m bouncing all OVER the left side of the web finding hilarious stuff about this jerkoff.
    I’m guessing I’m only talking to you (Jill) at this point in the thread, but clearly I missed a party with this vile pile of crap he tossed the other day. I see now that a) we’re all “property” (except for him, because he’s a Christian Libertarian!), b) date rape does not exist, c) anyone who disagrees with him is a silly girl and a “moral relativist” (whatevah), d) there’s no such thing as a “victim,” people deserve whatever they get, especially if their morals aren’t based on Christianity, and e) SHUT UP AND GET IN LINE, BITCH! Where’s my dinner and slippers!

    Oh, and I forgot, “I threw up a little” is to be taken literally and NOBODY CARES!!!

    My sympathies to Stace for your having to listen to such filth.

  132. No Blood for Hubris
    No Blood for Hubris November 30, 2005 at 9:44 am |

    Say, he looks a little like JimmyJeffGuckertGannon with a mohawk, does he not?

  133. Beth
    Beth November 30, 2005 at 11:12 am |

    Actually, I was thinking Vox, er, Theodore, looks exactly like what I’d picture a skinhead to look like.
    But y’know, all that angry misogyny…he just screams “self-loathing closeted queen” to me. He practically broadcasts it. I know stereotypes are unreliable at best, but I’ll be damned if he doesn’t fit it.

  134. Beth
    Beth November 30, 2005 at 11:24 am |

    Uh, I’m now becoming the thread spammer.

    Was going to clarify my “stereotype.” The whole “if your morals aren’t shaped by my kind of Christianity, you are amoral” thing (as in, he was amoral and reckless and ONLY his religious dogma keeps him in line), the woman-hating (duh), the bad techno…even the ubergeek sci-fi (ducking) loner crap. It makes me visualize this incredible loser whacking off in the basement to Star Trek reruns (oooh, Captain Kirk!). Bleccch. If it weren’t for his kind of Christianity, he’d be in Hell by now! Praise the Lord, because the music couldn’t save him!

  135. Phila
    Phila November 30, 2005 at 1:17 pm |

    I was the one that said it was difficult to rape a struggling, dry woman. And that’s all I meant by that, because it’s damn true.

    Ya know, I’m sure it’s difficult to rape a man up the ass, too. But from what I hear, it happens pretty often in prisons all over America. Apparently, it involves brute force, the threat of death (a shiv at the throat, perhaps) and lots of bleeding, torn tissues.

    I don’t think the “difficulty” of sexual domination and sexual violence is that much of an issue to rapists.

  136. Misplaced Patriot
    Misplaced Patriot November 30, 2005 at 2:05 pm |

    To be overly kind to Vox, it should be said that his notion isn’t that women are property, but that all of our bodies are our own property. This is an extreme libertarian view – that the notion of my property and myself are the same. So when rape occurs, it is an act of violence to someone’s property, namely, the victim’s body.

    Most libertarians prefer to think of property as an extension of the self, rather than the other way around (so that theft is a violence against your person even if it is not violence against your body.) It amounts to the same thing, though, and they are just fooling themselves.

    Not that this makes his argument any better. The rest of his argument is just as repugnant as it can possibly be.

  137. nancy sparrow
    nancy sparrow November 30, 2005 at 3:21 pm |

    so rape isn’t a crime

    bend over guys – I’m sure you won’t mind it either

  138. SilverOwl
    SilverOwl November 30, 2005 at 3:33 pm |

    Since Vox supports rape so much, I believe he should walk the walk. He could stay in a maximum security prision and when they’re done raping him he can tell us how much he actually liked it and wanted it. Then he can tell how the “men” protected him.

    I’m sure he wouldn’t mind his arse pulling a train.

  139. turnerBroadcasting
    turnerBroadcasting November 30, 2005 at 4:02 pm |

    I guess what I’m curious about is why there is any commentary on this thing at all.. after all the post itself is funny enough. Its kind of like making a joke, of a joke, isn’t it.

    bottom line, this stuff is as far from christianity as saudia arabia is from human rights.

  140. midwesterntransport
    midwesterntransport November 30, 2005 at 4:44 pm |

    Just a brief comment:
    I don’t think it’s useful to follow up horrific statements about rape with statements about how you’d like to rape the man who said that offensive thing about rape.

    It’s all kind of part of the problem, know what I mean?

  141. Andrew C. White
    Andrew C. White November 30, 2005 at 5:57 pm |

    Oh my Gawd!

    There isn’t much of anything else to say after reading that except… I think I need a shower!

    Peace,

    Andrew

  142. Phoenix Woman
    Phoenix Woman November 30, 2005 at 8:43 pm |

    Wow, the anti-Semitic defenders of the Jew-hating Vox Day are now turning around and calling Cindy Sheehan an anti-Semite! You guys project better than a Bell and Howell tungsten-bulb unit.

    But of course, the Vox Day defenders get their news from Vox’s dad, who’s an insanely rich man and one of the nutballs behind World Net Daily. That’s why Theodore Beale’s never felt the need to grow a conscience: His father’s riches have insulated him from societal norms. Check it out, here: http://phoenixwoman.blogspot.com/2005/11/manliness.html

  143. Robert
    Robert November 30, 2005 at 9:08 pm |

    Phoenix Woman, read closer. I say Cindy Sheehan is an anti-Semite, and I say that Vox Day is a piece of shit.

  144. Binary Blonde
    Binary Blonde December 1, 2005 at 2:18 am |

    Wow. No words.. This actually made me physically nauseous.

    I cannot even fathom how men like him exist.

  145. Sramma
    Sramma December 1, 2005 at 3:49 am |

    Ok, I don’t understand all the Zionist parsing going on. My younger son, who is half Jewish, and raised to be proud of all his heritages, feels Israel is wrong, and I accept that he knows more than I do about the subject. But one thing I know about is motherhood. After one has given birth, fed, clothed, taught, educated, learned from and enjoyed the raising of a child for twenty odd years, one definitely has earned the right to a clear explanantion of the noble cause that child has died for. And the ridiculing of Cindy Sheehan is a patriarchal response which makes war possible. I suggest that motherhood is a feminist value and women who demand to know why their children were ordered to war deserve as much respect and support as those mothers who demand an explanation for their dissapeared children.

    And Vox is despicable.

  146. LJ/Aquaria
    LJ/Aquaria December 1, 2005 at 3:58 am |

    What a wacked out creep this Vox guy is.

    And Cindy Sheehan = David Duke? Wow. There’s some mainlined illogic for you.

    You know, I don’t like a lot of the things that the US does in regard to Israel, and I don’t believe that Israel is right, no matter what. I’m a lapsed MOT (Jewish slang for Jews) who fully believes in Israel’s right to exist. But I know where to draw the line between Israel, a nation-state, and Judaism, a religious belief. Guess that makes me an anti-Semite, too?

  147. A Hermit
    A Hermit December 1, 2005 at 11:10 am |

    For even more laughs, here’s “libertarian Christian” Theodore Beale (aka Vox Day) on how to achive peace in the Middle East:

    1,000 eyes for an eye

    The Israeli government must announce to the world a unilateral ceasefire, balanced by the deadly promise that for every Israeli soldier killed, 25 Palestinian police will die. For every civilian, 100 non-combatant Palestinian adults will be slain, and for every child, 1000 adults.

    Furthermore, if another Jewish child is murdered, Mr. Arafat will be the first to pay the price. Only Palestinian children will be considered off-limits for these terrible reprisals. Whereas the historic 10-to-1 fatality ratio maintained a cold peace, the current 3-to-1 ratio foments a hot war. A 1,000-to-1 ratio will bring a permanent peace, one way or another.

    WWJD? Commit genocide apparently….

  148. tigerlily
    tigerlily December 1, 2005 at 11:59 am |

    I think Vox Day’s tune might change if HE were the one to be raped, especially if the prepetrator is a 350lb black guy; Vox Day sounds a little racist, doesn’t he? Regardless, I think a little “walking in another’s moccasins” might be in order!

  149. Samantha von Trash
    Samantha von Trash December 2, 2005 at 10:25 am |

    What a disgusting, dispicable piece of crap! And he whines about OTHER people being “ignorami”??? This is *the* most ignorant piece of absolute drivel I have ever read, designed and packaged as pseudo-intellectual bullshit. And that bit about feminists dying alone and dying out…no, it’s that jerkwad’s dinosaur thinking that will ultimately die out, along with “ignorami” like him. He should be anally raped with the thick end of a baseball bat with rusty fishhooks and see how HE likes it! If he thinks so many women hate men and blame men for their own problems…well…with “men” like him, it’s no wonder!

  150. I’m back (with a list) — Distracted Mind

    [...] fabulous: People who feel the need to spew hatred and poison like the people featured in this blog article Awkward social moments at ho [...]

  151. Horatio
    Horatio December 2, 2005 at 4:03 pm |

    I’m glad for this post. It’s good to be reminded that there are people out there whose viewpoints need to be ceaselessly and actively opposed. As a man, sometimes I see feminism as an abstract, but reading shit like this brings it home to me what feminism is, what feminists stand for, and the walking septic tanks that they and everyone else who loves peace and justice are up against.

    Thanks Feministe.

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.