Conclusions on Feminism Part 2

"Feminism is the radical notion that women are adults."

The problem in America is that we treat women like they are part child, part adult. 
That's really, really it. 
Too many Americans see women as "Adults Lite" or "Children Plus" and it is reflected in the way we employ them, use them in our armies, punish them when they commit crimes and mourn when they are abused. 

As a society, we abhor men who sexually abuse young girls and boys. We somehow see women who do the same thing as slightly less culpable.  I think this is similar to the way that we see less harm in a 19-year-old man having "consensual" sex with his 17-year old girlfriend than we do a 40-year-old man and a "consenting" 17-year-old girl.


Why do we do this? Sex with an under-age child is harmful to them no matter the age of the perpetrator, right? Not exactly. We think of that 19-year-old man as more of a child than the 40-year-old. And we certainly don't think a crime has necessarily been committed when 14-year-olds have consensual sex with each other, right?


Well, what's more child-like than a 19-year-old man? A 19-year-old woman. That's part of the reason why society doesn't care as much when an older woman has sex with an underage boy.



You could even make the case for eye makeup that embiggens their eyes and hairless bodies as the ideal vision of female beauty being tied to the childization of women.
(Yes, I just used two words that aren't words in one sentence. But you knew what I meant, didn't you? That's right. Deal with it.)

Hell, we even have a federal organization named "Women, Infants & Children."


I think this ties into one of the biggest problems facing Feminism today. The effort that has been put into getting women the right to vote and into the workplace has been crucial for women to physically, financially and legally "leave the nest" of child-like status when they were passed from parents to husband for custodial care hundreds of years ago.


But now, women are permitted the benefits of adulthood without many of the societal expectations and responsibilities we expect of adult men. 


Women are still:
Able to avoid parental responsibilities via abortion, adoption or abandonment
Able to sidestep military drafts via exclusion from selective service
Able to sidestep career "duties" via relative ease of being a housewife
Able to sidestep or mitigate criminal sentences 


Don't get me wrong: women being excluded from voting and employment opportunities are not the only ways that women have been and still are harmed by this mentality. Those were just the most egregious and systematic/institutionalized issues. Women still have many issues to deal with today - just add Jezebel to your daily reading and you'll be bombarded with (mostly) valid issues.


That said, there are certain benefits to being a woman today in the same way that there are things that are pretty awesome about being a kid (assuming you're not in an abusive home.) I think Feminists think that these "benefits" to being a woman either A) aren't really benefits at all or B) think they'll go away on their own as Feminism grows in popularity. 

It is especially apparent when feminists stand up for women accused of crimes. They may outright defend them or may look for reasons (systematic/gendered or otherwise) to excuse their behavior. This is blatant childization of women. We do the same thing when a child is accused of a horrific crime - "What kind of home did they grow up in? Were they being abused? Were there drugs involved?" We excuse and mitigate the consequences of the behavior of juveniles because they are less developed than adults. 


When you do it with women, you're saying the same thing. You're saying they're less culpable for their actions because they are "less developed." It's bullshit and I've only seen a few feminists speak up about this.



And that's why I butt heads with Feminists. Women have been committing crimes for the entire length of humanity because people commit crimes. Men, women and children, too. We are all human beings - animals with great intelligence, capability for good and evil acts and an incredible knack for adapting to our environments. 

It makes sense for women to who are enjoying the recently-earned benefits of full adulthood to fail to recognize the increased responsibilities that come with that position. It's called a "catch." And right now, men are the ones primarily being caught by it.


To those of us wishing to change our environment - socially or politically - we'd best not forget the animals we're dealing with: Apes that want to get the most reward for the least effort. It's in our programming.

Conclusions on Feminism Part 1

I said it earlier in the year, and I knew it would happen.

I reserve my space here on the somewhat anonymous internet to talk about things I feel confidently enough to espouse as the Real Me. This also ties into the name of this blog and me - "Easily Enthused." Because when I discover a topic or issue that I don't feel that I've "got a handle on," I very quickly get enthusiastic about it, passionately arguing and discovering until I feel I've reached a resting place, metaphorically speaking.

I knew this day would come. I've experienced it a few times before in my life.
The first was when I left religion and asked myself "Without God, how do I know what is 'good?'"

The answer eventually came in the philosophy of Universal Utilitarian Humanist principles. The long story short was that a good action is one that benefits the most people.
(Aside: The stumbling block is "then why not kill one person and distribute his organs to multiple people who need new organs" and the answer is "because although a few people would benefit from his organs, many more people would be harmed by the knowledge that they live in a world where one innocent person can be killed for their organs.")

The next question was "How can a moral criminal defense attorney defend people he/she knows is factually guilty?"
The answer came in two parts: A) no one has perfect knowledge of truth and B) our criminal justice system relies on the government 'behaving itself' when it comes to depriving a citizen of their liberty. Without someone to hold Government to task, more injustices are sure to come.

It was these two questions I sought answers to that brought me to modern-day feminism and gender in/equality issues. A handful of my atheism and law-related blogs ended up mentioning feminism over the course of a few months and I delved deeper into my own personal experiences and expectations of feminism as it relates to society.

I came into the topic with essentially one "sacred concept." This concept would never change, and most people I cared to discuss these things with should share this principle.

It was:
"Your gender or the gender assigned to you at birth should have no bearing on the treatment you receive, the expectations people have of you, or your value as a human being."

I thought that made me a feminist. Unfortunately, I found that I tended to disagree with a lot of other feminists (online, mind you) on many of the details. I was repeatedly told that I was not a feminist.

So what am I? What do I really believe? This blog chronicled this period of self-discovery.

I think I've come to my conclusion.

It's been said that "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people." 


When I first heard this phrase a few years ago, it angered me. I thought it was as ridiculous - if you're not "people" then what are you? An animal? Pshht. Nobody thinks that. 


I still think the statement, as it is currently worded would be useful in the Middle East and some other countries. Gender equality is a sliding scale, after all.


But in North America, I still think the phrase is relevant - sort of. I think it needs one small change.




Edit: I realized that I really need to flesh this out more and add a few more examples that I had. Right now, I'm going to break this into maybe a two- or three-part post so I can collect my thoughts more clearly and they will better stand up to the criticisms that I expect to come. Stay tuned.

Just Read This

I'm not publishing this link to inflame, incite or rally anyone.

I think it's important that people on different sides of a debate make sure they listen very, very closely when a person on the "other side" expresses an emotion other than anger.

Here, we have an older radfem who feels hopeless and resigned that the Feminism of today doesn't reflect what she spent most of her life fighting for. It genuinely made me sad - not because I agree with her movement - but because spending your life working for something that doesn't work has to be one of the most crushing realizations a person can have when it comes to social justice.

Here's the link:
http://jezebel.com/5859818/why-wont-the-porn-industry-give-ladies-the-man-they-want?comment=44421919#comments

If you care what I think, I think that women like her (30+ years ago) had gotten so wrapped up in the inequity of gender that they successfully convinced themselves that something that naturally is pleasurable for many women is actually harmful for them. Maybe they thought that if they inspired enough women to abstain from sex that men would start treating women better - although I doubt they would admit to this "sex strike" technique even if it were true.

Then, things started changing. Year by year, women gained ground in business, government and education. We're getting to the point now where sniffing out gender inequality is more akin to CSI than forest-for-the-trees. It's getting to the point where men, rather than fighting feminism, are holding outstretched hands to it and asking "What about me?"

We're living in a world where increasing numbers of young women who read the great Feminist authors of more than 20 years ago are saying "this doesn't resonate with me and with what it means to be a woman in 2011."

That comment up there is proof. I'm glad her movement is dying, but I'm always sad to see someone fail at a "noble cause."

EDIT: Commenter Tim has pointed out that the comment on Jezebel has been moved to the (LOL) "ohhellno" category. Generally speaking, I am happy that they did this, but I'm also a bit torn by the ability of a feminist space to "hide" it's ass, so to speak.

On the other hand, I wish to do the same thing to the MRA contingent who continually espouse ridiculous attitudes towards women, so I guess I'm being hypocritical. I guess I'm just going to have to be happy that Jezebel realized how unproductive that sentiment is to the Feminist movement. Thanks, girls women ladies people!

DOUBLE EDIT: After reading through the comments, it seems the original commenter is from Germany. I am slightly more concerned for the entire world after reading that, as I thought radical feminism was a product of North America.

Of Forklifts and Potty Trips

It's story time, again. From the ages of 14 to 17, I worked at a lumber yard and hardware store. This was a well-connected mom & pop type shop. It was a hard, minimum-wage job - and the only reason I kept it was a sense of duty. In my small town, jobs for non-country-club kids who weren't 18 yet were hard to come by. It was either this, or have no spending money.

There was a problem with this job, though. I wasn't allowed to use the fork-lift. Every time someone needed items that were either up on shelving, like a pallet of shingles, or 8x8 lumber (which is too heavy to lift) I had to run around the lumber yard trying to find someone who wasn't busy to bring the forklift over, get the items, then return to whatever they were doing.

Meanwhile, the customer just sat there.  Eventually, a few of the regular contractors there refused to let me serve them.

I'll never, ever forget how that made me feel. I felt like less than whole - like a failure.

And all because of stupid paperwork that said I couldn't operate a forklift until I'd been on this planet for 18 years. I had my license - I could drive my Nissan across the country if I wished. But I couldn't use a forklift to move a pile of bricks four lousy feet.

Funny story (not really), I got in the habit of moving things with my hands that were too heavy - that I should've used a forklift to move - and because of that, I injured my back permanently.

OK, end of story.

Now read this:
http://www.chicagonow.com/high-gloss-and-sauce/2011/09/dads-wiping-butts-bad-touches-were-growing-up
(Edit: After some flak from Paul Elam and many people from A Voice for Men, it appears Jenna has taken down all of her offending articles. Register-her has saved a PDF of her original post with the first 100 or so comments. It can be found here: http://www.avoiceformen.com/portal/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Keep-dads-out-of-preschool-potty-duty1.pdf)

I keep having to take deep breaths while writing this. This one article has made me angrier than I've ever been since I started blogging.

As someone who notices the way that men are the victims of sexism, I'm used to seeing this - but never so unabashedly.

Unabashed sexism is exactly what this is - and if you read the comments (which I don't recommend) she has plenty of supporters.

Jenna Myers Karvunidis has displayed the holy trinity of bigotry: bad statistics, bad faith and bad logic.

First off, she blithely states "99% of sexual predators are men, only 1% are women and girls are over twice as likely as boys to be sexually abused" with absolutely no citing of her statistics.

That's because she pulled them out of her ass. People from Reddit have flooded her comments with correct statistics - and yes, there is a skew towards male perpetrators but it's certainly not 99%! The ironly is that skew towards men could very well be due to a society that sees women as incapable of harming a child sexually - a society perpetuated by people like Mrs. Karvunidis.

Secondly, she belligerently attacks the commenters who call her out on her sexism by claiming that they're only angry because they're pedophiles who want the opportunity to molest.

Wow, so I guess all those middle-eastern people who are angry over being profiled as terrorists by the TSA are ACTUALLY terrorists who want to sneak by security?

Lastly, she openly admits that she isn't concerned with logic.

She says it best in her very own words:
"Again, why are you guys trying to change my mind? IT WON'T CHANGE. You may use perfectly sound logic, you may use unsound logic, you may bully me, you may scare me, you may send hate mail to my house but I will never, ever change my mind on this."

And best of all, she calls herself a "Feminist." Holy shit! At least she admits that she "pick and choose when I'm a feminist because I'm not down with man-bashing."

Actually, Jenna, you look quited down with man-bashing to me.

(takes a deep breath)

Frankly - I have no idea how to deal with this type of issue or person. There's no way to change her mind (as she has made painfully obvious).

I'm a little afraid at what some of my friends in the Men's Rights community might do about this. As of this post, she's just been added to register-her.com, a site designed to highlight sexist, sexually abusive or false-rape accusers.

Her unabashed sexism makes it really hard not to take off the gloves - but I fear someone may go too far and take OUT the knives. I really, really hope that no one threatens her or her family with any type of violence or other inappropriate actions. Boycott her site, write letters to the editor, make blog posts like this one - but please, don't make it so she or her family can't sleep at night - no amount of bigotry deserves violence.

Manliness is Not Next to Helplessness

Pinpointing the exact reason for my hesitation to claim the title of "Men's Rights Activist" or a member of the Men's Rights Movement has been a tricky subject for me.

The movement for men is a collection of men (like myself) many of whom have been brought up to think that "real men" are never helpless. We are DO-ERS. We GET SHIT DONE, SON.
In general, our ultimate goals are the same. I'd like to see a world where traditional male gender roles aren't the only option for those born with a penis. I'd like to see a world where people who naturally grow facial hair aren't expected to be violent. I'd like to see a world where persons with testicles aren't seen as the only perpetrators of crimes.

But still, something keeps me from waving the high flag of Men's Rights - and I think today I had a breakthrough.

One thing that nearly every single male MRA has experienced is what it's like to grow up in a culture where men are expected to be Men you know, a Man's Man. A Manly Man or a MAN.

Thanks to Feminism (no, really, THANKS!) women are feeling less and less pressure to be "Woman's Woman" or "A Womanly Woman" or "WOMAN." Gender flexibility for women is increasingly prevalent and that's a good thing for women AND men.

No thanks to Feminism (No, really, NO THANKS) men are still being told by each other and many, many women that they still need to be MEN.

The result is the mentality that a man who cannot act upon his surroundings is no man. This is Male Potency - and it is one of the core attributes of what it means to be a man.  Without it, we are impotent, pitiful, and even comical.  Barney Fife. 

For all our screaming and yelling – a habitual inability to affect any change is pitiable and unmanly. We don’t want to be Barney Fife – we want to be Andy Griffith.

Cool, calm, collected - but authoritative, effective and respected.

This hidden psychology is creating problems for men in the MRM, where they are drawn towards concrete issues with concrete solutions rather than the more intangible work of swaying cultural perceptions and overall societal biases.

If we do a quick run-down of the more concrete, policy-based issues that MRAs are concerned about, it might look something like this:

• Military draft only applies to men
• In custody disputes, women are considered default care providers
• False Rape Accusations unfairly target men (and are hard to defend against if the accusation reaches the criminal court level)
• Male adult victims of DV/rape/sexual abuse have essentially zero support resources
• Sentencing disparities for crimes committed by men vs. women (doubly so for sex crimes)
• Lack of parenthood choice for men - (Men's options for fatherhood end at conception, women may use Plan B, abortion or adoption)

And the following is a list of the cultural perceptions and societal biases that the MRM would like to overthrow:

• Men being seen as the "expendable" sex
• Men incapable of being "victims"
• Men unable to control their sex drive - leading them to cheat/rape
• Men being dirty
• Men unable to "nurture"
• Men being violent by nature

It’s not that the second list is unimportant.  In fact, many of those general concerns are folded into the aforementioned issues - the ways that men are stereotyped relates directly to the policies and stigmas that men face in the first category.  It’s just that we can’t directly fight against bias in the same direct way that we can fight for policy change.

This situation creates a whole new level of complexity when viewed through the lens of "Male Potency." Like any movement in its infancy, MRM must pick its fights in order to avoid the pitfalls of early defeat.

With that in mind, if you look back up at the issues men are facing - you'll see a problem.
All of the problems in the first category involve solutions that have the potential to harm women or children, though indirectly. If the amount of money being given to DV survivors is zero-sum, supporting men will mean taking support from women. If men are given an option to default "out" of parenthood, more children may be raised without child support. If we change the standard of proof for False Rape Accusations, rapists could go free and rape survivors could be wrongly charged with a crime.

Those are all bad things. But as it stands, MRAs are faced with the cruel reality that those issues are the only ones they are capable of changing.

So, the MRM faces a dilemma.  In choosing its battles, will the MRM choose to tackle issues where satisfying, concrete change is possible, or will the MRM choose to tackle the more intangible, less directly actionable issues of public perception and stereotypes?

The first category allows men to feel potent and effective in directly tackling a problem with a face and a name, and seeing progress in ways which can be measured and quantified.  But, it comes with the consequence of damaging the movement’s reputation when our actions are incorrectly interpreted as a battle against women and children. Sometimes Feminists may make this interpretation. Sometimes gender-inequality non-Feminists may make this interpretation - but either way it creates a Public Relations nightmare for our cause.

The second category would avoid that problem, as we are reaching out to create awareness and appeal to the empathy of others through outreach efforts.  But it feels less satisfying, as change in public perception is so slow and so difficult to see or measure.  You can’t really tell if anything you are doing is making any difference at all, and the efforts we launch now are likely to not come to fruition within our lifetimes. This is difficult for men who need action and want to feel empowered to create tangible change.

And I believe it is for this reason that the MRM has focused on policy changes and legislative action.  It’s tangible, progress can be measured, and it is concrete.  It isn’t that men don’t care about public perception - I'll bet most men would prefer a world where men aren't seen as "expendable" or "dirty." But how do we do that? You can't pass legislation to change public perception. Feminism has shown us that stereotypes and public opinion take decades, even centuries, to change — especially when the roots of such ideas are at the very heart of Western Culture. So instead, it’s that the MRM is drawn towards issues where concrete, effective change is possible, and can potentially be achieved quickly.

This focus is understandable, particularly for a group whose needs have been ignored and even ridiculed for so long.  But it is backwards.  Policy change flows from societal perceptions.  Until stereotypes are challenged, there will be no political expediency to change policies to become less discriminatory towards men.  And even more than that, when we fight the policies first, particularly with the potential negative consequences for women and children, we earn the movement a reputation as being anti-women or anti-children rather than being pro-men.  In this way, not only do we fail to create forward progress, but we actually create extra work for ourselves, because we must work backwards through the negative reputation attached to our efforts.  

Let’s look, for example, at the struggle for gay rights.  At first, all attempts to legislate equality failed miserably, and in fact resulted in a backlash where religious groups attempted, sometimes successfully, to pre-emptively define marriage as being only for straight people, in an attempt to prevent gay rights from becoming legislated.  This only changed once the movement focused primarily on public outreach - on encouraging gay people to come out of the closet and reach out to their family and friends and community. It was only once a majority of the public knew a person who is openly gay, that the stereotypes about what it means to be gay started to come down, people started to empathize with the plight of gay people, and public bias started to shift. Only then was legislative reform successful, when it came after a successful movement to shift public opinion.

And this is the reason why I hesitate to describe myself as a Men’s Rights Activist.  Because my focus is on awareness, public perception, overthrowing bias and stereotypes.  I can’t get behind all of the legislative policy change proposals of the MRM because I believe it will come at a cost too great to our movement.  We have to do this in order.

* We, as in us gender egalitarians.

Choice for Men: A Hypothetical Situation

Recently, a topic that never fails to get me riled up has been coming up on the gendersphere. The issue is "Choice for Men," and I think it is one of the few, genuine masculist issues out there.

As I've been mulling it over and talking with opponents of C4M (Choice for Men), (http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2011/09/20/why-choice-for-men-is-wrong/) I think I've drilled down to the core of their beliefs that prevent them from embracing C4M.

Embodied in two parts, I think it could be said like this:
1. Innocent children are due support from the people whose biological material lead to their conception.
2. Biology/bodily autonomy is responsible for women's ability to end pregnancy (and end the development of a fetus, which has no rights to support, before it becomes a child which does have rights to support.)

So now that I think I understand their position, I developed a realistic scenario that I want feedback on.

If you're reading this and have weighed in on either side of C4M before, I'd really appreciate it if you would please respond with what you think a just and fair child support system would do in this situation. You may leave an anonymous comment if you wish.

The Scenario 

James and Janet are married and have two children, two and four years old, Sam and Max. They want to have a third child in the near future if Janet gets the promotion she has been promised. James is a stay-at-home dad with no income and Janet is a consultant. James and Janet are also in an open relationship, and a few times a year they arrange for a weekend to engage in NSA sex with people outside the relationship. (Don't judge!)

Three months ago, James and Janet went off for a weekend and had sex with other people. James has sex with a woman named Annie and Janet with a man named Richard. For simplicity's sake, Annie and Richard are both single. Both use condoms. Both condoms break. Janet and Annie both become pregnant.

Janet, who was not planning on speaking to Richard again anyway, has an abortion. She desired to have a child with her husband, not Richard.

Annie, is different. Annie in her mid-30s and due to a medical problem when she was younger, was told by doctors that she was sterile. She contacts James and tells him she is pregnant. James says that he will pay for her to get an abortion - as he realizes he is partially responsible for her pregnancy. Annie refuses to have an abortion. She knows that James is well-off - he was wearing nice clothes and driving a nice car. Plus, he offered to pay for the abortion. She decides she will try to raise the child on her own, and if she cannot, she will get financial support from James.

She knows that this may be her only chance to have a biological child of her own. She decides to keep the child and gives birth to Charles.

Unfortunately, Annie underestimated the costs related to having a child. Unable to take the time off from work to care for Charles, Annie is forced to take a lower-paying job that allows her enough time to spend with her baby.

Caught in a difficult situation, Annie applies for child support, as she cannot supply her Charles with all of his needs on her income alone.

Unfortunately, James does not have a job - he is still a stay-at-home dad.

Imagine you are the judge who is making the decision about this situation. You have Annie, Charles, James, Janet, Sam and Max in the courtroom with you. How would you rule? What would be most fair to all the people involved?

Would you force James to get a job to support Charles, while taking him away from his own biological, planned children?

Would you take money from Janet to support the child - as she is the one who supports James in the first place - thereby removing support from Janet and James children Sam and Max?

Would you simply award 20% of James income to Charles - which essentially amounts to $0 - and only hope that Annie can find some form of support for her child through charity or fortune?

Would you work out some other arrangement?

Hopefully this exercise has made you think a lot about what presumptions you have when it comes to the way our child support system works. Now, I present one last challenge:

Imagine this situation in a gender-equal world where James and Janet could either be the sole breadwinner in the houshold. If men start becoming income-less house-husbands on a wide scale - do you think women would still be having babies and supporting them alone? Or do you think more women would abort their pregnancies because the man that got them pregnant has no income?

Actually, Not Dead

Heads up to my readers: I'm not dead or stopping posting, NOR do I feel the need to "take a break" which is the sure death-knell of any one-person blog.

Simply put, I've been working far too much and through far too many weekends and holidays. My first priority is my wife, my second is my career, my third is my leisure time, my fourth is my health and my fifth is my continued education about the world and its workings.

This blog falls under the fifth priority. I have a handful of posts tumbling around in my head that I can't wait to write out - as soon work stops being so demanding, I'll get them out there. In the meantime, here's a picture of a beautiful vehicle:

http://the-ic.deviantart.com/art/Mazda-RX9-2012-Concept-WIP5-171278550

When the Baby Should Be Thrown Out with the Bathwater

Mary Daly was one messed up lady. I've never read her books, but I've read interviews and other writings she's done. I have a hard time following her - she's a bit too Postmodern for me - and I can't follow her points because of the flowery prose she writes with.

Mary Daly was also trans-phobic and misandrist, although, without a doubt, she would say that misandry is impossible because men are the ruling class.

Realistically speaking, Mary Daly was, in my opinion one of the few, true, unarguably misandrist Feminist leaders the movement has had. I'm aware many MRAs will point to countless others they believe to be misandrist, and that's fine. They might be right.

But Mary Daly's misandry is beyond doubt. This quote makes my point:

"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males."

I don't appreciate it when people say she was calling for genocide here - notice she was saying that evolutionary process would be responsible, not human intervention.

But still - her belief was that men - by definition of having penises - were going to bring about the end of humanity. Men are unredeemable - there is no salvation for them.

She might as well have said "Men are intrinsically evil - they can never do good for humanity."

Now, to test if a statement is misandrist, all we have to do is plug in some other language ... so let's give it a shot:
"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of white people."

Yup - that's hate language. Mary Daly hated men - no further discussion necessary.

Back to the point of this post, now.

The question has arisen - can we salvage any of Daly's work when she held these terrible views?

That question was posed just yesterday at Feminist Critics. Danny said:

If its unfair to dismiss Daly and all her work because of her misandry (which BTW most feminist sites acted like they didn’t want to acknowledge) and declare that she is not a feminist then how is it then fair for feminists to point to Spearhead and the selective writings of manboobz as supposed evidence that the entire men’s rights movement is nothing but a vehicle of hatred that hopes to keep women oppressed so men can have the right to beat and rape their wives at will?

Ah, the "baby and bathwater" dilemma.

Let's run an experiment, shall we? Let's remove gender issues and feminism from the mix - because we're all a bit prejudiced here on that issue.

Let's say you're having trouble in your garden behind your house. Your tomato plants aren't growing tomatoes, your pear tree is an ugly yellow color, your grass is spotty and gray and your roses smell like tuna fish.

You call up two gardening consultants to help you fix your lawn.

The first consultant, Gary, spends 30 minutes examining your back yard and gives you some recommendations about watering, trimming and fertilizing your garden, lawn and bushes. He explains a little about the soil composition in the area and the amount of light your back yard receives and how that affects your plants. As you pay him for his time, and walk back towards his truck, he engages you in polite small talk and mentions how none of his advice will matter because the world is coming to an end in a week, and he knows this because aliens are projecting their plans into his head when he sleeps at night. You nod, thank Gary for his time, and say goodbye.



Later that same day, the second consultant you hired stops by. Roger spends 30 minutes examining your back yard and gives you some recommendations that are a little bit different than what Gary advised. As you pay him and walk him back to his van, he explains to you that he knows how to take care of plants because they can speak to him. He says that the plants are planning a secret revolution and will soon be our rulers. He said that your garden is doing so poorly because the plants are angry with you because you drive an SUV and don't recycle your plastic bags. He advises you to trade in your car and start using reusable grocery bags if you want your plants to forgive you and your garden to flourish. You nod, thank Roger for his time, and say goodbye.

You go into your house, close, lock and dead-bolt the door, and now must choose whose advice to follow.

Both gardening consultants are, to be kind, operating with some very faulty conceptions regarding how the world works. Less kind folks would call them crazy.

But ultimately, you can only follow one of the consultants advice. I suspect most of you would follow Gary's advice. Gary held some wrong views, but they were not related to his area of expertise.

Roger's views were intrinsic to his gardening advice - and even if he had some good advice for you in general (reusable bags and trading in your SUV) his purposes behind that advice is indelibly linked to his perverted perception of reality.

Now, what does this mean about his advice? I believe that, in the same way that a broken clock is right twice, the fact that Roger may have given you some good advice - you can not rely on him because of this taint. If you want to find GOOD reasons to take his advice, you can (such as saving money and reducing waste by switching bags and cars) but you can't use "Because Roger Said So" when trying to convince others.

Therefore, I claim that any and all works by Mary Daly (relating to gender issues) may not be used due to her unrepentant misandry.

If she has some cookbooks somewhere that I don't know about - feel free to read and quote from them.

But you don't take investment advice from a communist.
You don't take legal advice from a guy in jail.
You don't take dieting advice from fat people.

Don't expect to improve gender issues while quoting and reading Mary Daly.

Blame the Victim?

This local story has me a bit befuddled.

Shoplifting-suspects-presumed-dead-in-drowning

Is it ok, in this situation, to say "Well they shouldn't have been running from the loss prevention officer. If they hadn't shoplifted - they wouldn't be dead right now ... etc.?"

Maybe I'm Being Oversensitive

But this internet meme rubs me the wrong way:

I resent the idea that a girlfriend is "best" when she watches you play video games.

FUCK THAT - PLAY WITH ME!

Who wants a woman to shout "Kill him!" when she could be saying "Let's kill him!"

"Rape for Men"

This started out as a comment - but I think it's too long.

It's in response to Ozymandias post at her blog: Myth of Male Power Rant

In her post, Ozy calls Warren Farrell (the founder of modern masculism) out for drawing an analogy between some things that happen to men and the rape that women experience.

I have to say, although I don't worship Warren Farrell as some sort of masculist god, this post raises my hackles a little bit.

Also, I haven't read the entirety of "MoMP" so judge me accordingly.

Warren writes from a position that many men who were raised in progressive circles in the 1970s and 1980s can relate to - and those men, like me, often view rape as a relatively unique violation that only women can be victimized by.

(Obviously: We are quickly learning that the number of male rape victims is greater than we suspected - so our views are changing.)

But with (the false, yet thoroughly ingrained mindset that) rape, being a violation only women can experience, it is a useful analogy for men to use to examine their own violation.

Most young men who grew up in the 70s and 80s view the violent rape (date or stranger) as one of the most heinous crimes imaginable. Many would kill anyone who did that to a woman they care about. We see rape as a unique, grotesque violation of that which we love - women.

By the same token, we were still taught that we, men, could not be victims. Either we deserve what we get, or we should've been strong enough to fight off our attackers.

I think what Warren was trying to do here was to use the visceral reaction we have of rape as a unique crime against women - and attempt to draw some line of similarity between these two gender-based injuries.

Ozy, if you subscribe to the oppressive concept of women as "sex objects" and men as "success objects" then I can perhaps help you see where I'm coming from:

If a woman's worth is seen as a "sex object" then to "violate" her in only a way that she can be violated is to take/use/destroy her sexuality and sexual agency. Rape, disfigurement (acid splashes and box-cutters) and genital mutilation are some common ways of doing this - I think we all agree here.

But the flip side is what I think you are misunderstanding from Warren's point of view. If a man's worth is seen as a "success object" then to "violate" him in only a way that he can be violated is to take/use/destroy his ability to provide for his family or himself.

In this gender concept, women who use child support systems to take wealth from the man are a form of "gender identity violation." When women encourage men to "rape them" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4hNaFkbZYU&feature=player_embedded) they are asking a man to engage in behavior that could put him in jail, ruining his reputation, ending his career and destroying his ability to perform as a "success object."

Child support can be $800 a month. That's $172,000 over 18 years going towards a woman and her child who should've used a sperm donor but who decided to be deceptive.

I know men who'd rather be raped by a stranger than pay $172,000 that they may never even be able to earn.

Men and women who grow up identifying their self worth in either their sexiness or wealth have different vulnerabilities - that is the point that Warren Farrell was trying to get across.

We can either divorce our genders from these notions of sex and success - or recognize that men have a unique way of being injured that women experience through sexual violation.

It's Lonely On This Side

Well, the atheist community has spoken, and I find myself on the outside looking in on my favorite bloggers. It appears, I disagree with the vast majority of mainstream atheist bloggers on the Elevatorgate issue. I also happen to agree with Richard Dawkins.

Wow, against the odds, I agree with his Lordship Richard Dawkins. I should be giddy with intellectual indignant pride.

But I'm really not.

Adam Lee, the founder of Daylight Atheism is the blogger I admire most in the world. He talks about complex issues that challenge what we know about truth, justice, morality and ethics - and no matter the position he takes - I always found myself agreeing with him. Always.
But not now.

Hemant Mahtma, founder of the Friendly Atheist has always been the voice of reason in the community. He blogs about important events in the atheist community almost instantaneously. He is always approachable. I don't agree with him on vegetarianism, but he's mostly spot on. I especially appreciate his friendly, not-in-your-face strategy when dealing with atheist Public Relations issues.
But not now.

P.Z. Meyers, the founder of Pharyngula, is a fiery, angry atheist in the most stereotypical vein of thought. I don't like P.Z. I'm going to come out and say that. There are people in the world I disagree with, but like. P.Z. is a guy I generally agree with, but dislike. I don't like his tone, I don't like his blog style - it's all too angry for me. He probably is a fine person - but as a blogger - no me gusta. That said, he's usually right about issues. He may speak arrogantly, but his point is right on, and I agree with him.
But not now.

Lastly, Jen is the founder of BlagHag, and next to Greta Christina, probably the most famous female atheist blogging right now. Jen is a sex-positive, science-loving not-straight feminist atheist blogger. In the past, she's called out feminists for it's failure to embrace science. I particularly like her because she can poke holes in evolution misinformation. And generally, she's got the movement right and we agree.
But not now.

When I find myself on the opposite side of "party lines" I usually use that as an indicator that I need to re-evaluate my position.

Surprisingly, I think I can clear up this problem, and the above bloggers probably aren't going to like what I have to say. This comes down to which you are first - a humanist or a feminist?

Borrowing from Hemant's blog, here's the rundown of the situation:

1) Female 1 is at a bar after giving a speech on sexism in the atheism community in a foreign country. She announces she is tired and goes to the elevator.

2) Unknown Male approaches Female 1 in the elevator and says: "Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?'.

3) Female 1 says no and then goes to her room.

…

4) Female 1 makes a video in which she mentions the situation, that she felt creeped out, and tells men "not to do that."

5) Female 2 responds to the video saying that situation doesn’t sound as bad as Female 1 made it out to be and that although Female 1 has a right to feel creeped out, she has no right not to tell men not to do that.

The situation progressed a little further when Female 1 called out Female 2 while giving a speech where Female 2 was an audience member. But that is a separate matter and not something I care to address.

For most of my regular readers of this blog, the situation may not seem like a big deal. But this is a HUGE deal - both for the atheism movement and for feminism.

For what it's worth, I stand very firmly on the side of Female 2 (Stef). In some ways I can identify with Unknown Male (Elevator Guy) because it's possible that he really did find her interesting and wanted to talk to her more before she probably left his country. That said, of course I think Female 1 (Rebecca) had every right to feel creeped out. However, when she sent out a APB to other men saying "don't do that" she was taking a subjective experience that creeped her out and saying that it creeps all women out - therefore there is no good reason to do that.

Rebecca makes a serious error here - because not only does she impede Elevator Guy's freedom to engage in polite conversation - but she speaks for other women by branding his actions as something that is universally deplorable. It was this second point that I think prompted Stef to make her video.

If you're having trouble understanding Stef's point of view, how would you feel if a member of your sex made a blog post that said "Please stop complimenting us on our hair. It creeps us out - and we imagine you making little hair dolls of us."

You might say "Wait a second! I got a compliment on my hair the other day and it really lifted me up! And just because you are afraid of someone making strange hair-dolls out of your hair, doesn't mean that I get that mental image when someone compliments me. LET THE HAIR COMPLIMENTS CONTINUE!"

This is the difference between Feminists and Humanists.

Feminists want to maintain the class differentiation between men and women - and give women improved protections from men (because men are physically stronger than women) and maintain female victim status. In other words, they want to keep up the fence between men and women, put a gate in between it and only allow women to pass through to the other side. They see men's side of the fence as having the greener grass and the richer soil. It's got more sun, more shade and higher property value. They want to mosey on over to the men's side so that things are "equal." When men express interest in heading over to the women's side - the reply is simple "No, no no, that side is shitty and there's no reason for you to go there, so you just stay over here on the nice side."

Humanists want to tear down that fence and give everyone the freedom to enjoy the entirety of the human experience. Sometimes that means sticking to one side of the field - but the most important thing is the ability to pursue the act of being your own person. You should not be held back by other people for any reason, especially race, sex, ability or orientation. Genetics and fortune will already do enough to hold us back - we don't need other people to do it for us.

From a humanist perspective - the admittedly "not threatening" behavior of Elevator Guy could not have reasonably been expected to ilicit a creeped-out response in Rebecca. Therefore, he was acting reasonably in approaching, conversing and then ending the encounter after she declined his offer. These were simply two people - on of whom with power and fame (Rebecca) and one without (Elevator Guy). He made a request to spend more time with her. In a humanist world, every person, regardless of sex, class, race or orientation has the right to speak to another person in respectful manner. It doesn't matter the time or location. That is a human right.

From a feminist perspective - the subjective experience of the woman in the situation (Rebecca) is paramount. She has unique perspective on the actions of men and how they relate to the oppression of women. Her uncomfortableness is valid, and that valid uncomfortableness is the direct result of another persons behaviors: therefore that other person's behaviors are WRONG. FULL STOP.

I can be pretty cruel to feminist ideology on this blog. But the above sentence is intended to be a real, honest attempt at summarizing the feminist position here. I'm doing that because I realize that feminists aren't evil - but their ideology is based on a flawed idea of gender classicism that, if we continue to follow it, will result in more suffering than is necessary. That's why I'm a humanist before I'm a feminist - because sometimes the answer to society's problems isn't "More Feminism."

There is another angle to this - and it's how atheism deals with the lack of women active in our groups. But I'm going to save that for another post.

P.S. I, personally, would never engage in any meaningful conversation with a person I'd not met previously in an elevator. I have a few reasoned, rational reasons for this:

A) Elevators constrict our movement. Body language is important in gauging a person's mental state and emotions.

B) Possibility for conflict. You can never be sure when someone will "go off." If I mention to someone, for example, that I'm about to get my tax return, they could've just been informed that they owe millions in back taxes and could have an emotional breakdown that I will have to be party to for the remainder of the trip.

C) Possibility for extended discussion. I might hit a sweet spot with the other passenger - they may want to tell me a story longer than I have time for - I don't want them to hold me up from getting to my floor.

D) Possible false rape accusation. I'm just saying, it's possible.

Now many of these issues are "non-issues" at a convention when you know the person. That's why I don't give Rebecca any slack. In fact, at a convention, I'd be MORE likely to strike up conversation in an elevator. That said, I would not proposition a woman I had JUST met on an elevator while she was heading back to the room - because I know I would have about a 0.00001% chance of being successful. 1 - Because I'm not much to look at and 2 - because typically an intelligent woman speaking at an atheist convention wouldn't be turned on just by my looks and I'd need to develop some rapport for her to comprehend my "assets."

P.P.S. Some people - trying to get it across to white, privileged men what it feels like to be propositioned in an elevator have offered this analogy:

Suppose you were in an elevator, and a big (bigger than you) thug said to you "How about we go up to my room and I fuck you in the ass."

My honest response would be to laugh and say "No thanks, I'm sore from playing Halo." And if he continued, I'd say "You would not survive the attempt; I'll cut your balls off."

I'd rather be dead than a violent rape survivor.

Everything Means No - OR Why I'm a Post-Feminist

Why I am a Post-Feminist

People have criticized me elsewhere for describing myself as a Post-Feminist. They say things like "There are still millions of women being raped every day across the globe - how can you say we don't need feminism anymore?"

This weekend I was blessed with a perfect rebuttal.

Feminism has been shouting for decades that No means No.

Imagine the following scenario: A man says to a woman "Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?" The woman says "No, thank you." Hearing this, the man says no more to her and leaves her alone.

Feminists should be happy with this outcome. But they aren't.

No, because feminists want a world where men can't initiate sex. They might say that what this man did was wrong because:

1) It was 4 a.m.

2) They were alone in an elevator

3) He was drunk

But none of those things matter - it might've been 4 a.m., but hookups happen at that hour, too. He also probably didn't ask in the company of other people because he wanted to give her the option to be discreet. He also probably wouldn't of had the courage to ask her if he were completely sober.

But no - none of this matters because No means No isn't good enough apparently. The new feminist moto is "Everything means No!"

Sleeping Through Spring - A New Life

I have returned with a new life.

I don't plan on posting a large amount of personal information on this blog. I feel like I have enough people in my life - through Facebook and other, real life venues - that I can adequately vent the often unoriginal frustrations I face. (traffic, red tape at the DMV, etc.)

I reserve my space here on the somewhat anonymous internet to talk about things I feel confidently enough to espouse as the Real Me. This also ties into the name of this blog and me - "Easily Enthused." Because when I discover a topic or issue that I don't feel that I've "got a handle on," I very quickly get enthusiastic about it, passionately arguing and discovering until I feel I've reached a resting place, metaphorically speaking.

This is my area to explore ideas and challenge common knowledge - and that doesn't really have much to do with my day-to-day life.

In the past few months I've been rather engaged in modern feminist movements. As a child and young adult, I was taught and saw the world in a rather post-feminist way. When I bumped heads with some women in the atheist movement regarding "women's voices," I was schooled in pre-conceived my post-feminism arguments were.

Before this time, when I heard some right-winger bashing feminism, they got the eye-roll and hand-wave. Terms like "man-hating" and "Marxist" were discounted out of hand by me.

But this new (to me) face of feminism (especially on the Web) forced me to admit to myself that not only did I have a pop-psy idea of feminism, but it was possible that in my life I had not listened to some people who might've had a good argument because they were dismissive of feminists. If the feminists that they were dismissing were the same radical feminists I'd bumped heads with - well maybe I had to reconsider all points of view.

This prompted me to create this site and to make a concerted effort to better understand modern Feminism. Irony of all ironies - this decision would come right before and as I made one of the most gender-oriented actions of my entire life: getting married (to a woman.)

Simply signing some papers and exchanging loops of metal wouldn't quite be ironic enough, so chance decided that my college-educated and gainfully employed now-wife would also be forced to quit her job and become a housewife (until she could find a new job in our new city.)

This change has some very obvious financial aspects that I won't bring up here: that's nothing new. But both my wife and I came to a startling conclusion after about two weeks of my 9-to-5 absence while she played the role of housewife.

Our relationship (going on 4 years now) has seen every type of stress related to "workload" there is.
At one point she was the college student, and I was the low-income-professional barely scrapping by.
At another, I was the well earning professional while she was off studying abroad in an open relationship.
Most recently, we were both well-earning professionals pampering our cat and spending too much on food that would rot in the bottom of the fridge.
But now, we play the role of well-earning professional and bored-at-home housewife - and it feels so odd.

Our responsibilities have been divided in a very simple way: I pay the bills and bring heavy things upstairs in our 3-floor townhome - she takes care of the cleaning, laundry and most food preparation.

Since I spend most waking hours in my office at work, I had to rely on my wife's opinion of how her day compared to the "working world."

Her response was shocking. I've said that my dream job is Househusband. I love to cook and although cleaning isn't my favorite thing to do, once I get started, I surprise myself at how satisfying it can be.

My wife's response to housewifing has been - mostly boredom. She has time during the day for a nap and she said that once we get into a grove (we're in a post-move mess right now) that the amount of work for her in a day doesn't add up to the amount of time she'll have to get it done. (That would change drastically if we had a child or pet, but we have neither at the moment.)

During a drive, we were discussing it and believe we've come to an answer: appliances. If she didn't have the benefit of the dishwasher, washer and dryer, stove that didn't need to be constantly stoked, etc.... taking care of a house would be a full-time job, and then some.

But as it stands right now - coming from a professional used to working 40+ hours a week, it just isn't. The argument is that second-wave feminism has more to thank from Kenmore than MacKinnon.

Luckily for me, my wife is a post-feminist. She, who graduated from a small liberal women's college after studying American Culture recognizes that her life is not so different from that of men - and certainly not so different that it makes her "oppressed as a class." It's easy for her to be thankful for the hard work of first and second wave feminists and to facepalm the arguments of modern, man-hating Marxist feminists.

I didn't know this (explicitly) before I married her - but I'm not surprised. I know she's smart.

You Might Be an Asshole If ...

So, I took my first stab at making a comment at Feministe. I wasn't going to link there here because I don't like the idea of dogpiling. A bunch of supportive dissident feminists showing up there would quickly turn into a clusterfuck. But the thread has been closed, so I'm not worried about sending folks there.

It was closed because of an asshole infestation. I might've been one - I'm not sure.

For the relatively small commenting crowds that show up at non-controversial posts at Feministe, I feel that I could do a decent job on my own of representing dissent. The reason is that if you (as a dissenter) have one point you want to contest, and someone who agrees with you ... oh fuck it. Analogy time:

You make the complaint to the "Baker's Bureau" council that they are selling fattening cupcakes at Store #5. Valid retorts come back from the council saying that the cupcakes aren't that fattening, they don't sell many, etc. An invalid retort comes back saying that the milkshake stand next door to Store #5 is just as bad and you should go bother them.

It's easy for you to say "No, I'm talking to you about your cupcakes at Store #5, don't bring in other issues."

With me?

Now imagine another person, angry with the Baker's Bureau about Store #5 appears next to you and shouts out "Store #5 sells honey-drizzled croissants, as well, with the same calorie count as the cupcakes!"

Yes, Honey-Croissant-Person is on your side, and almost certainly agrees with you about the cupcakes. They are an ally.

But if you are just looking for an answer from the Baker's Bureau about those damn cupcakes, you don't want to start talking about croissants!

I hope that wasn't too hard to follow.

Back to the Anxiety post: My first post was an honest question: if women are more anxious than men, and this study says it's because of the way we're raised, how SHOULD we raise our children? I also threw in there a reference to the high rate of male suicide -because anxiety plays a role in any suicide.

I thought I was on-topic with this. I don't think it got off-topic until Eve posted, claiming that the anxiety women experience could be correlated to "the constant stress of being threatened with sexual violence."

She derailed the conversation about female anxiety into blaming rape culture.
Her original correlation was related to this finding about infant mortality among minorities:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2007/09/28/20099/racism-may-affect-infant-mortality.html

She bought the story as reported hook, line and sinker. She turned "racism may affect infant mortality" to "sexism certainly affects female anxiety" with ZERO link in between.

The thread quickly went down hill from there, and I don't blame Jill for closing it. I didn't intend on stirring up that much shit, and I don't even know how culpable I am.

Eventually, PrettyAmiable turned my rhetorical question into a weapon and I knew the thread was lost. She really thought that I was asking "Do all women feel like you do?" was one I honestly expected an answer to, so she came back with a snarky "Well, I happen to know that all women feel exactly as I do all the time."

Considering that I wasn't even asking her, I knew the thread was lost.

Shortly after that, I realized that being skeptical of "rape culture" brands one an asshole. Fantastic.

I'd also like to say that I'm a little disheartened. I started this blog hoping to better understand my own experiences with Feminism, feminists, sexism and gender.

It now seems that my options are limited:

• Read pro-feminism blogs that stringently delete, dogpile or moderate dissent
• Read and comment on pro-feminism blogs that will quickly identify me as a dissenter and therefore disregard any rational argument I make
• Read MRA sites that are far too misogynistic (and rarely chastise their own)
• Read the barely-updated FeministCritics.Org
• Suck Hugo Schwyzer's penis
• Continue to post rarely-read and even-more-rarely-commented-upon posts at this blog and hope enlightenment comes

Deconstructing "Rape Culture"

This post originally started out as a response to Miguel's post "Ass-smacking dude." But eventually, as I realized I had a whole lot more to say than was reasonable to say in a blog comment, and as I realized I'd probably want to link to this post in the future, I realized my blog might be a better place to lay it out.

Aside: I have read Feminism 101's post, Rape Culture 101, and I'm doing my best not to get "offended" (or as Shakesville would say, "contemptuous") when I am repeatedly told to read the Feminism 101 blog. I realize that there are a bunch of people out there who don't understand feminism and want to go online and spout all types of strawfems and logical fallacies in their anger at Feminism. These people would do well to read Feminism 101. But for the rest of us who have read the entire site and still disagree with certain points, I get really sick of being referred there. I only see two possible solutions:

1. Start every comment, post or e-mail I write with a disclaimer stating that I have already read all of Feminism 101, along with a link to a scanned picture of a notarized print-out of every page of the blog.
2. Have some sort of code language - like ISIREAF101AIYRMTTSIWBRPO* with a link to this blog post embedded. (*I swear I have read everything at Feminism 101 and if you refer me to that site I will be royally pissed off)
3. Ignore people when they refer to that blog.

End Aside
For starters, I'd like to say how well the Rape Culture 101 post at Shakesville was written. Hopefully, astute readers will realize that by the title of this post, I do not agree with Shakesville's definitions and conclusions regarding rape culture -- that said, seeing that Rape Culture 101 is one of the most commonly seen links in discussions about Rape Culture, I think it warrants saying that it is an EXCELLENTLY written post and still serves a useful purpose - I"m glad it's there.

The problem with Rape Culture 101 is that the author, Melissa McEwan, buys into the Rape Culture theory and therefore, isn't a reliable, objective guide to whether it's true or not.

Luckily, early in the post, Melissa flatly states what Rape Culture is with a handy definition:

A rape culture is a complex of beliefs that encourages male sexual aggression and supports violence against women. It is a society where violence is seen as sexy and sexuality as violent. In a rape culture, women perceive a continuum of threatened violence that ranges from sexual remarks to sexual touching to rape itself. A rape culture condones physical and emotional terrorism against women as the norm.

In a rape culture both men and women assume that sexual violence is a fact of life, inevitable as death or taxes. This violence, however, is neither biologically nor divinely ordained. Much of what we accept as inevitable is in fact the expression of values and attitudes that can change.

Tonight I'm not going to concern myself with the latter half of Melissa's post because there is so very, very much wrong with what she is saying. Just to illustrate this point, I'm going to pull out this line:

Rape culture is treating straight sexuality as the norm.

No, treating straight sexuality as the norm is called HETERO-NORMATIVE, and you know that, Melissa. The fact that you want to lump something that has already been identified, codified and vilified (rightly) in with another "bad thing" term you and your Feminist friends have come up with is indicative of the dishonesty of your cause.

However, right now I'm going to dissect the definition that Melissa provided point by point and offer some sympathy, apathy and disdain for each aspect.

Let's get to it.
A rape culture is a complex of beliefs that encourages male sexual aggression and supports violence against women.

This sentence is a summary of what is to follow. Right off the bat, in North America, this is half-and-half false. "Encourages males sexual aggression" is true. I won't argue, nor will I allow others to make an argument against this. Men are encouraged to ask for dates and initiate physical affection in North America. Dutch-dates and women initiating sex is marginal and relegated to established relationships. Men must PENETRATE, both socially, financially and sexually in popular culture.

Rape Culture 1, Real World 0

The second part of that sentence causes problems however. "Supports violence against women" has to be the most obscene public expression that I can imagine in North America. Allow me to demonstrate. Violence against women in the real world is not tolerated. Violence against women in MOVIES/TV is only done by villains (and sometimes they are defined by it.)
As a society, we DO NOT CONDONE, ENDORSE OR ABIDE violence against women by men. Unless you are operating on a bizarre, unknown definition of "violence," there is no excuse for holding that belief.
(As a side note, I fully recognize that this point would be valid in Saudi Arabia or many other countries/societies/cultures. However, the VAST VAST MAJORITY of Feminists we encounter are North American or European and cannot claim this aspect of Rape Culture exists where they live.)

Rape Culture 1, Real World 1

Let's move on to the next sentence.

It is a society where violence is seen as sexy and sexuality as violent.

Again, it seems that the Feminists are going to win another point. And with this statement, they should. I fully agree that violence is seen as sexy and sexuality as violent.
I'm tempted, however to only award half a point here. Yes, violence is seen as sexy (but that works for both men and women.) The half point is being held back for "sexuality as violent."

What if sex IS inherently violent? There are loving human interactions that could be seen as violent to an outside observer. Chiropractic medicine comes to mind. A quick look at animal biology shows that as a biological process, sex is painful and unfortunate for females in many cases. But not all. Most of us could imagine the slow, loving, embracing type of sex that is often seen on soft-core porno. But for the vast majority of humans, that type of sex doesn't result in orgasms. I'm sorry that Rape Culture-ists have a problem with human physiology. No, really, I am. I'm lazy and would love to have orgasms from that slow, undulating type of sex. But that's not going to happen for me or 90% of the population. That doesn't mean that the "violent" appearance of that type of sex is bad.

Still, I will award you your point because we're tallying by sentence (and also because I know you winning this point won't matter in the end.)

Rape Culture 2, Real World 1

The next sentence:

In a rape culture, women perceive a continuum of threatened violence that ranges from sexual remarks to sexual touching to rape itself.

At this point, my kid gloves are coming off. Let's get down to it, shall we? The reason this definition is so obviously false is that it gives women's POV a power that no one should hold: to dictate reality simply by perception. Women perceive a continuum of threatened violence = therefore it exists.

This is so offensive to science-minded folk that I hope I don't owe any more explanation. I don't owe it, but I will give it:
KKK members perceive a continuum of minority invasion that ranges from "taking our jobs" to "raping our women."
Hopefully I don't need to say any more. Perception does not equal reality.

Rape Culture 2, Real World 2

Let's move on:
A rape culture condones physical and emotional terrorism against women as the norm.

Well, hmm. You've used an inflammatory word here. "Terrorism" I'm trying not to get angry at the blatant disregard for escalation in your post.

The common definition of terrorism relates to the goals of said activity. If a suicide bomber ran into a market filled with people and blew himself up to PREVENT PEOPLE FROM GOING TO THAT MARKET - that would be terrorism. If a suicide bomber ran into a market filled with people and blew himself up BECAUSE HE THOUGHT THE PEOPLE IN THE MARKET WERE FILLED WITH JEWELS AND GOLD - that would NOT be terrorism.

Rape Culture apologists want us to believe that rapists are doing the patriarchy a FAVOR when they rape. They imagine a smoking-jacket-wearing man, puffing on his pipe saying to himself "I'm sure glad that those rapists are out on my streets scaring my wife and daughters into obeying me!"

This concept is abhorent on its face. The vast majority of men and women in the world would be dancing in the streets if there were no more rapists in the world. To say otherwise is borderline conspiratorial.

Rape Culture 2, Real World 3

Next up,

In a rape culture both men and women assume that sexual violence is a fact of life, inevitable as death or taxes.

I must confess: I'm not sure where to start here. If we look at this statement from a skeptical point of view, if sexual violence is a fact of life, then should violence itself be a fact of life?

You are opening such an old and rusty can of worms by implying that VIOLENCE ITSELF is not inevitable. Please, if you want to end sexual violence - GO FOR THE ROOT. End violence. If you think that a world where no sexual violence can exist (yet other forms of violence can exist) you are beyond naive.

Rape Culture 2, Real World 4

And next:

This violence, however, is neither biologically nor divinely ordained.

Because you say so? Oh, OK then. My bad.

Rape Culture 2, Real World 5

Lastly:

Much of what we accept as inevitable is in fact the expression of values and attitudes that can change.

I'd like to take this last opportunity to break down into the greatest detail possible this last "take away" statement - and then retranslate this into what a rational person SHOULD read from this.

"Much of what we accept as inevitable"
Should be read as:
"Since sexual violence is inevitable, violence is inevitable, and we accept violence as acceptable, so ..."

"is in fact the expression of values and attitudes that can change."
Should be read as:
"since we think that people who are more powerful than us are ACTUALLY more powerful than us, we should stop THINKING they're more powerful than us and we can end their power over us."

Rape Culture 2, Real World 6

You are a rational person's nightmare, Melissa. Your expression of the entire Rape Culture theory is a SHAM. You've expressed these thoughts to tens of thousands of people on the internet as though they were gospel.

In reality they are no better than a late-night infomercial.

You lure your audience in with some great (and true) promises - but the more you talk the less you say.