Once again, the article proves my point.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wome...
The rape threats are as follows:
"If your friends survived rape they weren't raped properly" and "Hide your kids I be raping all yall up in here" are both not rape threats.
The first is not a threat, the second references a video a while back in which a black man prevented the rape of his sister and when he was interviewed he said "Hide your wives and kids and your husbands because they're raping everyone up in here!"
It was sarcasm. Unless children were actually being raped as he or she said it which, if true, means worse was going on than some troll twits to an adult woman.
Well, presumably an adult woman.
Moving on to a disturbing comment I found on Hannibal's video "
This is by Pauline Triage
"Cut Toronto a wide berth. That city is stupid with MRAs. Speaking of which, I wonder whatever happened to that 19-year-old boy who claimed he'd been gang-raped by four fat chicks. The National Post gave that story quite a bit of press for a few weeks because that paper is very sympathetic to MRAs. Something tells me it turned out to be bullshit, something the National Post wouldn't be quite so eager to crow about."
So, apparently, recognizing male victims of rape is a Men's rights plot and a result of our infiltration of the media.
This feminist doesn't believe men can be raped by women, folks. Full stop. Cannot happen. I dare you to even find a single MRA commentator who would doesn't believe women can be raped by men. I double dog dare you. Feel free to trawl the skeeze and slime of the men's rights movement for a single wack-a-loon MRA who says this.
If you find one and evidence that he or she said it I'll draw you a picture of my shaved pussy.
Cat.
On to my final item.
I've been arguing with a feminist called "the safe word is banana" on my video "Men's Rights Edmonton versus the Slutters" regarding sexual objectification.
The reality is that there is no such thing as sexual objectification. Normal men do not sexually objectify women.
A study showed that men respond not to a woman they find attractive but a woman they find attractive who is indicating interest in them by looking at them.
Let me just repeat that. Being attractive is necessary but not sufficient to elicit a sexual response from a man; a woman also has to express interest in him.
In order to recognize a woman's subjective state of desire, a man has to recognize her as a separate entity capable of her own thoughts and feelings. In fact his sexual response follows an empathetic modelling of her subjective state based on her social cues.
Men are not responding sexually to women as objects; they are responding to women as subjects.
As such, the term 'sexual objectification' only real meaning is to demonize men and perpetuate a myth about men's sexuality as coarse, predatory, animalistic and vicious.
All of which is false. Men's sexuality is tied to our advanced theory of mind as humans, our empathy and our ability to model others emotional states.
Men's sexuality is empathetic, compassionate and mutual.
As such I believe using the term "sexual objectification" should be considered a form of non-contact sexual violence inflicted on men.
So feminism in promoting "sexual objectification" as an actual thing that men do is engaging in sexual violence against men as a group.
Every single angle I look at feminist thought from, it invariably reveals itself to be foul.
Now I know for a fact that the vast majority of feminists are good people because the vast majority of all people are good people.
But why do you support this? Why are you so tied to this word? When are you going to wake up and recognize that this word is being used to commit an atrocity against men?
The specific study is referred to in this video lecture:
watch?v=LOY3QH_jOtE&list=PL848F2368C90DD
Here is an additional study that buttresses the findings:
http://www.icn.ucl.ac.uk/dev_group/uf...
No comments:
Post a Comment