The virtue of victimhood.

I have broached the topic of self-victimization in a few previous entries, especially in reference to “but what about teh menz” rhetoric, but I don’t think I’ve ever written about it in detail.

Self-victimization is defined as creating a state of victimhood without proper justification. It does not designate actual victims of harmful actions who complain about the harm done to them. Rather, it designates individuals or groups who manufacture victimhood in order to gain the moral high ground.

I return again to my example of MRAs, who bring up laundry lists of reasons why they believe women rule over men (see 1 and 2); these lists are full of falsehoods, misrepresentations and absurdities.

That conclusion being drawn, one may then ask, why are they even doing this? What’s the point? Why do neo-nazis even bother to deny the Holocaust and promote a zionist conspiracy, even though the Holocaust is one of their greatest “successes”? Why do MRAs push bizarre conspiracy theories about feminism? Why do statists accuse minority groups and unpopular opinions of all the evils in society, instead of the real culprits? Why do Christians attack science and humanism as the enemies of mankind, when in fact it is capitalism and democracy that are the worse enemies of religion?

Consider again the manichean worldview, on which our loyalties are based. In this worldview, we (the in-group) are the “good guys” and cannot do anything wrong, and they (the out-group) are the “bad guys” and cannot do anything right. Therefore, logically, any harm we inflict on them must necessarily be ethically justifiable, since it cannot be wrong. This is a wonderful example of linear logic, as obvious and natural to the believer’s mind as two plus two make four.

Add to this the positive aspect of victimhood; we naturally sympathize with victims because we empathize with their plight and are outraged at what happened to them. Because of this, it is hard for anyone who sees themselves as good to think that their actions have in some way created victims. It also looks very bad from a simple public relations standpoint.

The two main ways in which one can justify harm that one’s in-group has inflicted are (1) to deny the harm actually happened or (2) to claim that the harm was justified by the fact that they (the in-group) were the “real” victims in that situation. The former is generally unsustainable, therefore the latter is usually more successful.

Therefore we get the idea that, you know, rape is really not that big of a deal because women are just “asking for it” and men can’t help it if women are “overstimulating” them. So men are the actual victims here, and women have the power because they use men’s instincts against them. You see, sex workers are dominating their customers by forcing them to pay to see them naked.

From any sort of objective view, this reasoning is simply laughable. But it is psychologically much easier for a genderist to believe that men are the real victims of rape than to believe that their beliefs are evil.

The only alternatives to defenders of manhood and gender in general are either to (1) admit that their beliefs cause harm and that they are actively lobbying for that harm, (2) that rape doesn’t really happen, or (3) that men are the real victims. Claiming that men are hapless animals entrapped by wily women is an example of (3). The constant attempts to define rape and specific instances of rape (“she didn’t scream!,” “he was her husband!,” and somesuch nonsense) out of existence are examples of (1). Pushing manufactured “false rape allegations” statistics is an example of (2) (and I do intend to discuss this topic in a future entry, because their lies are so astonishing that it’s hard to believe they’re getting away with it).

The more developed the us v them complex, the more developed a view of the enemy one has. There are a few genderist crackpots who claim a feminist conspiracy, although these are not widely accepted beliefs amongst genderists. But other in-groups have accepted conspiracy theories. The nazis had the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (although said document was produced decades before the Nazis came to exist), the Christians have the “homosexual agenda” and the Satanist conspiracy, conservatives have the liberal media conspiracy, and so on. Most pseudo-science quacks believe in some Establishment conspiracy that actively suppresses the TRVTH, although the specific culprits vary. Statists nowadays use terrorism to shape the enemy.

Like most arguments by true believers, these are projections. When we look at actual conspiracies throughout history, we find that by far it is the evildoers, the destroyers, who conspire and commit terroristic acts. Nazis had a made-up Protocol justify a real Holocaust. Christians had a non-existent Satanic conspiracy justify a real Inquisition, and now they use a fantasy “homosexual agenda” to push the death penalty for homosexuals in Uganda. During the Cold War, the Red Scare was used as a pretext to slaughter union leaders and activists around the world.

This is the result of a complex, constantly evolving framing of what the enemy is, but with or without this framing we still get to the same result: persecutors must be praised and victims must be blamed, and the manichean framework must not change. The truth must not be confronted at all costs, no matter how absurd the mechanism to evade it might be.

This seems to me very similar to the process by which Alice Miller says we cannot confront our childhood trauma and, because of this inability, become aberrated adults who will gladly cheat, lie and kill in the name of a higher power.

People who were treated with respect as children, who weren’t drilled to become robots with the aid of mistreatment, will never want to die out of “faithfulness to the Führer” or send thousands of human beings to Stalingrad against all reason just because some madman planned it… In the Fürher’s headquarters, and all counter-arguments dissolved into fear and mental paralysis or, on the other hand, into enthusiasm when they heard him (the father) speak. This disastrous political blindness that cost millions of people their lives proves conclusively what our grandparents so hotly denied: that in every case, physical as well as psychological abuse of the child is not only harmful but highly dangerous. Not only for the individual but under certain circumstances for whole nations.

To evade any accusation of Godwin’s Law, my point here is not that all people who refuse to confront the truth and instead justify themselves through convoluted pseudo-reasoning are just as bad as the Nazis; rather, I’m arguing that they all flow from the same source and proceed in the same fashion. There is no substantial difference between neo-Nazis rationalizing the Holocaust and Americans rationalizing the genocide of the natives or Hiroshima. The acts are different, but the self-victimization process is the same and returns the same result.

Neo-Liberalism and the Defanging of Feminism

Feminism is about equality??

Most people in the United States think of feminism or the most commonly used term “women’s lib” as a movement that aims to make women the social equals of men. This broad definition, popularized by the media and mainstream segments of the movement, raises problematic questions. Since men are not equals in white supremacist, capitalist, patriarchal class structure, which men do women want to be equal to? Do women share a common vision of what equality means? Implicit in this simplistic definition of women’s liberation is a dismissal of race and class as factors that, in conjunction with sexism, determine the extent to which an individual will be discriminated against, exploited, or oppressed.
bell hooks, Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center

re: Understanding Meaning …just soap the dope

An MRA makes a feeble attempt at a counter-argument…

As you may remember, I published two debunkings of commonly circulated list of “proofs” by MRAs. This pissed them off, because they are whiny little bitches who cannot deal with any level of disagreement without believing that it’s all part of some great conspiracy against them.

I have not received any semi-serious rebuttals (I don’t expect any serious rebuttals because MRAs do not have that much intelligence), but some moron MRA called “Eye of Woden” tried to rebut another debunking by Owen Lloyd. Here is my examination of that post. I will not link to Eye of Woden’s entry here so I don’t give him any more hits, but I’m sure you can find it anyway if you search.

Here is the entry where I give my responses to the same list.

The first point is about men’s suicide rate being 4.6 times higher than women’s. In response, it has rightly been pointed out that, according to the statistics, women attempt suicide at three times the rate of men. So here is the moron’s response:

Which is worse, 100 men dying by suicide in a single attempt each, or 35 women attempting suicide 3 times each, and still being alive to seek services for that which drove them to attempt suicide in the first place?

What sort of idiotic question is that? First of all, the numbers are wrong: to replicate the “women attempt suicide three times as much,” it should be 100 women attempting suicide 3 times, not 35 women; then, to fit the 1:33 ratio of successful to failed suicides, it should really be 3300 men attempting for each 100 men dying, and 3300 women attempting suicide 3 times. So Eye of Woden sucks at mathematics. But more importantly, “which is worse” is not a question unless we specify exactly how it’s worse. If we start from the assumption that any single suicide attempt reveals an underlying problem, then obviously three times the suicide attempts is a bigger concern.

But either way, so what? We debunked the belief that suicide rates prove that men have it worse than woman. Only Eye of Woden’s failure at mathematics hides that fact.

Falsehoods exposed in the claim that men die from suicide at a rate 4 times higher than women: 0

Okay, but here’s the problem: no feminist is trying to “expose a falsehood” about this point, but rather to demonstrate that the statistic is not relevant. So Eye of Woden makes a straw man here. He has failed to refute the point and now is covering his ass.

The second point is about men’s life expectancy being lower than women’s. As I pointed out in my debunking, that fact has been true for more than a century, therefore feminism cannot be the source of the discrepancy. Eye of Woden does not address this, because Owen Lloyd did not. Fair enough, although I can’t help thinking how convenient that is. Instead, he spends his time attacking the gender wage gap. Ridiculous.

Falsehoods exposed in the claim that men live an average of 7 years less than women: 0

Again, no feminist has stated that the claim was incorrect, so this is another straw man. It’s easier for him to punch thin air and pretend he’s winning.

The third point concerns the laughable conceit that men are “almost exclusively” the only victims of war. I am not even going to address this point because only an imbecile would even consider it. Bombs don’t differentiate genders. If I must inject facts in this ridiculous conversation, Reza, Mercy and Krug 2001 show that the male to female ratio in war deaths is 1.3 overall. MRAs are crackpots and liars.

The fourth point concerns men being 95% of workplace fatalities. The answers here are that, first, the statistic is wrong, and second, that this is the result of dangerous professions being male-dominated.

As far as I can see, Eye of Woden has no reply to this. He waffles with the 95% figure, saying that it must come from a study of another country and that men’s issues are “global issues.” What is the point of all this? Everyone knows that the vast majority of MRAs are American and that the MRA movement is mostly American in nature.

But okay, let’s move on anyway and operate under the assumption that his number is correct. Again, so what? The reason why MRAs bring it up is because they believe this shows female privilege in not dying from dangerous jobs, when in fact it proves that male domination in demanding physical jobs (like mining, which women tried to get into for a long time) leads to men having those jobs. The fact that women were coercively barred from certain jobs is not a proof of female privilege.

Point 5 is about men being murdered at five times the rate of women. The obvious reply (obvious to anyone who’s not brain damaged by MRA propaganda) is that these men are murdered… by other men.

In response, Eye of Woden claims this is moving the goalposts. Apparently logic is still not his strong suit. Moving the goalposts means excluding evidence by changing the desired conclusion. The irony is that that’s exactly what Eye of Woden is doing here. He declares that the fact that men murder other men is irrelevant and that we have to take intersectionality into account. But the whole point here is that we are debunking so-called “men’s rights” issues, and intersectionality has never been part of MRA ideology. He only brings it to the discussion because it lets him ignore Owen Lloyd’s argument.

This is where his perverse version of a feminist ideology is showing. He feels that one gender’s problem must inherently be caused by the other gender in order for it to matter. Men being 5 times more likely to be victims of murder does not matter to him if men are also the ones committing the majority of hem.

Let’s be clear here: Eye of Woden is being dishonest. Of course it matters that men are killing other men. But that’s besides the subject, which is the MRAs’ feeble attempt at “proving” that women have privilege over men. How is this “proven” by concluding that men are more violent towards each other than women? Hell if I know. Don’t ask Eye of Woden, because he obviously doesn’t know either.

If person A keeps punching themselves in the face, and person B does not, does that fact alone prove that person B has privilege over person A? No. In itself, all it proves is that person A is an imbecile. You would need further evidence to demonstrate anything beyond that. Where is the evidence?

Falsehoods exposed in the claim that men are murdered at 5 times the rate of women: 0

You know the drill. No feminist claimed that… etc. Eye of Woden is an idiot.

Point 6 concerns child custody, stating that women receive custody 92% of the time. Now, as I pointed out, the statistic is a straightforward lie: the real number is 72% in the United States. Eye of Woden does not even try to address this fact, although he does present an 80% figure for Canada, which still proves the MRA figure is wildly off-base.

Point 7 concerns women being acquitted of spousal murder at a rate 9 times that of men. I have no idea where that statistic came from, and therefore conclude that it was probably made up, although I would like to see a source. Does Eye of Woden provide a source?

No. Instead, he argues that the rate is infinite times higher. So once again Eye of Woden hilariously proves how wrong the original list is. If NO husband ever gets acquitted for spousal murder, then why aren’t they shouting THAT from the rooftops? Given the number of statistics that MRAs plain make up, I find it extremely surprising that they wouldn’t broadcast this “fact” as widely as possible. Yes, I am saying that Eye of Woden is such a bad liar that even his fellow MRAs (a bunch of raving lunatics who are so disconnected from reality that they think only men die in wars) don’t agree with him.

Point 8 concerns men’s sentences for spousal murder being 2.8 times as long as those of women. In response, Eye of Woden brings up individual examples. How could a handful of examples possibly have any sort of impact on a global statistic like this? Again, the statistic remains unknown and therefore suspect, and no amount of hearsay stories can change that.

Point 9 states that men pay child support at twice the rate of women. As I pointed out, this is a straightforward lie. At this point, Eye of Woden gave up and says he just “can’t be bothered.” I am not overly surprised that Eye of Woden is tired of defending outright lies. As you can see in my own entry, every single point after 8 is either a blatant lie or an assertion made without references.

Eye of Woden’s pathetic attempts at defending his fellow liars and clowns only confirms what we already know: the list is filled with lies, misrepresentations and half-truths, and is basically indefensible. This is why he must obsess about issues on the fringe of every point in order to pretend as if he’s working at refuting what Owen Lloyd said. It doesn’t work.

Falsehoods exposed by Eye of Woden’s logically and mathematically challenged verbiage: 0 for 8, before he runs away with his dick behind his legs.

To all MRAs: try being real men for once and admit you’re a clutch of hysterical virgins who lie, cheat and threaten because you don’t have the testicular fortitude to face what woman-hating faggots you all are. Don’t like it, stop being one!

Johns’ testimonies are the best argument against prostitution.

Sister Trinity at Pass the Flaming Sword posted a great entry on the excuses used by johns, and translates eight testimonies of johns for us.

Christian, 23, freight forwarding agent, single

“Why do I pay for sex? Women often get on my tits. They nag you if you don’t spend enough time with them. That’s why I come here when I just feel like I fuck – and then I leave again. That’s it. It quickly gets boring to me with a girlfriend. And anyways: paying for it gives it that special something. Then you own the woman. You can do whatever you want with her. That’s power when you think about it. My last time? I come here about every six weeks. Sometimes I do it with one I already know, sometimes with a different one. I like it a little harder, no vanilla sex.”

Intelligent Design

Our economy is a false economy.

A great entry from The True Activist which gives ten good reasons why our economy is a fake economy.

1. Fake Jobs: It’s not just that the “official” unemployment numbers are a fraud, the actual jobs are fake as well. Ask yourself how many professions actually produce something of value? 80% of jobs could disappear tomorrow and it wouldn’t affect basic human survival or happiness in the least. Yes, in our society we need money to survive – and jobs equal money – but that doesn’t mean a “job” has any actual benefit to society. More on this in the next point…

2. Problems Create Jobs, Not Solutions: We can’t fix real problems, because it would destroy more fake jobs. We can’t end the wars and bring all of the personnel home when the jobless rate is already suffering. We can’t end the War on Drugs because where would the DEA agents, prison guards, the court system, parole officers, and the rest of their support staff work. We can’t simplify the tax code because the bookkeepers, CPAs, accounting professors, and tax attorneys would be unemployed. We cannot reduce the bureaucracy of government or streamline healthcare because paper pushers have few other notable skills. We can’t stop spying on Americans because it now employs millions of people. We can’t restrict the Wall Street casino, or hardly anyone will be left with a job. Finally, what will happen to university jobs when people either realize their product is not worth the cost or they discover they can get the same education online for nearly free? In other words, we need these manufactured problems to create phony employment.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 159 other followers