I find most of the “alt right” to be completely useless. They are very similar to the white (knight) nationalists who are nothing but manginas. Here is a good example. Some of you might be familiar with Brett Stevens. For those of you who aren’t, he’s one of the “alt right” types, and he writes at amerika.org.
Over at IMF, Human Stupidity listed ten examples of powerful men such as Dominique Strauss-Kahn who had their lives destroyed by false rape accusations. What did Brett Stevens have to say about this?
I can’t ride with you here. Most of these people should have had their lives destroyed.
In other words, Brett Stevens is saying that if you are of the “wrong” race, ethnic group, religion, job, or politics, you deserve a false rape accusation. One reason that the false rape industry is as big as it is because too many people think that false rape accusations are acceptable in certain cases. Brett Stevens’s support of the false rape industry isn’t limited to that comment:
What else has sexual liberation brought us?
An estimated 95% of the rapes that take place in the UK are never reported. Only 6.5% of reported rapes in England and Wales result in a conviction on the charge of rape. – The Guardian
Why so few convictions? Because in a time of sexual liberation, there’s almost no way to prove rape. Unless a dozen people saw the woman screaming “stop rape” after she was assaulted by a random person, there’s no real evidence. Semen or a condom? Also used for consensual sex. Evidence of roughness? Also happens during “normal” sex. He will say she said she wanted to have sex; she’ll say she didn’t. Did she change her mind? Did he misread the signals? It’s not as serious a crime anymore, because with so many women chucking the goods out the door without a second thought, it’s hard to prove they were unlikely to have said yes. No one wants to start another million-dollar court case where the evidence will never be strong enough to satisfy many critical observers.
Here, Brett Stevens takes feminist statistics on rape as gospel. Rather than admitting the false rape industry exists, Stevens says that DSK, the Duke Lacrosse players, Julian Assange, and many other men we don’t know the names of are all guilty of rape, but it couldn’t be proven. This is verbatim what feminists say about false rape accusations, that the accused men are all guilty but got off scot free. The fact is that these women lied. There is no confusion or lack of evidence. The facts are these women lied, but Stevens defends them like a feminist.
Brett Stevens supports the false rape industry just like a feminist. And like feminists, he is perfectly fine with false rape accusations being used against those he perceives as political enemies.
My original comment was off-the-cuff and not clear, so let me elaborate.
I am saying these people are bad examples to pick of those who have had their lives destroyed by false rape accusations.
We don’t need a Troy Davis or Mumia Abu-Jamal for the men’s rights movements (both are cop-killers who many insist are “not guilty”).
I thank you for opening this dialogue. Let me actually say something more controversial:
1. The only way to avoid false rape accusations is to avoid the polarization of the genders that comes with feminism.
2. The only way to avoid that polarization is to avoid egalitarianism, or a demand for equality of all people, but also to ensure that each person is valued.
3. The only way to do that is traditional gender roles and a strong central culture, religion or ethos to each civilization.
Now we’ve gone from “controversial” to “heretical.” Please let me know what you think, and thank you for taking my comments seriously enough to write this articulate article about them.
Sometimes I think men are so stupid that they actually deserve to be second-class citizens. Men like Brett Stevens are actually OK with false rape accusations against certain men. Wow. It’s almost as if they think they’re immunized in some way. What fools men are! It’s bad enough that they disregard justice and common decency. They also disregard self-preservation for themselves, their brothers and their sons.
The only men who are not troubled by FRAs, or think it is OK if the victim is someone they don’t like, are men who have no prospects of getting laid themselves.
That is why they are untroubled by this.
Just to be clear are you saying now that these men did or did not deserve to have their lives destroyed?
So who is a good example of a man who had his life destroyed by false rape accusations?
As for your 3 point plan, the problem with FRAs is not “egalitarianism” or gender roles. For instance, the FRAs that cab drivers are experiencing have nothing to with gender roles or egalitarianism. It’s because women don’t want to pay their cab fare. FRAs are a failure of law enforcement and justice so that is what needs to be fixed which can be done by bringing back Constitutional standards of law and justice.
There are two points to be made here:
1.
I can’t relate to your leftist moral terminology, but I can say this:
If I’m going to pick someone as an example of a victim of false rape charges, I sure as hell will not pick a scumbag.
Dominique Strauss-Kahn for example is facing multiple accusations. There’s enough smoke that there’s fire. I would not use him as a poster boy for that reason alone.
2.
Emulating feminists is useless.
You will turn yourself into a leftist.
At that point, you are supporting the ideology that created feminism.
It will re-create it.
You are moving in circles.
There is no “leftist moral terminology” here. It’s a simple yes or no question. Stop trying to dodge the issue.
Absolutely wrong. False accusations are fairly common because, from the perspective of the accuser, the impact of making the claim is massive to the target, but the blowback if it fails is weak or nonexistent.
We don’t need a three-point plan to defeat the threat of false accusations. When it comes to sexual crimes, restore the rational process of justice that is promised by the US Constitution.
That you would put forth this three-point plan that is completely impossible at the current time, rather than the simple solution I have just said, shows exactly the problem many of us have with the alt-right or traditionalists.
Rather than offer genuine solutions, they put forward nonsensical and untenable ideas meant to basically recruit men who want a solution into their ideological frame. PMAFT has been one of the premiere MRAs chronicling people who try this, and you have rightly been featured.
To be honest with you, Mr. Stevens, I am sympathetic to your viewpoint, and traditionalism in general. I have even read some of your blog before.
But, I do not appreciate your willingness to attempt to suck men into this viewpoint by pushing a traditionalist three-point plan when simpler and more effective solutions are available.
It tells me that you are more interested in achieving your world view than helping men by correcting injustices. This is the reason why MRAs and traditionalists have thus far been unable to form any kind of alliance, even when every opportunity is there for it to be a sensible and natural convergence of ideas and actions.
There are plenty of extreme MRAs that believe full sex equality is possible or desirable, and I think they’re nuts. But, guys like me who find value in the ways of traditional Western society don’t get much from the alt-right’s perspective on all of this, either.
The focus on race to the near or complete exclusion of sex issues, like feminism’s effects or the fact that white women have supported and made multiculturalism possible, makes me feel like they are missing a massive part of the picture. Such blindness does not inspire me.
Where did I mention race?
I think the point is that you can’t take one part of the system and fix it. You need a better system. We had one, and it decayed thanks to liberalism.
Feminism, as you know, is as liberal creation.
Why not just go to the source, and defeat liberalism, and replace it with a functional society?
Going back to the constitutional rights and freedoms we once had will simply return us to the same place we are now. Why? Because rights and freedoms defend the underdog, and are a replacement for a social order, not a social order in themselves.
I appreciate your reading our blog. I hope it has something to offer just about anyone, from anywhere in the world (other than the fact it’s in colloquial English).
First, I want to say that you can dump the evangelical manner you’ve taken. You’re doing exactly what I described: promising me an end to an issue I care about (FRAs) if I’ll just adopt your world view.
This is unnecessary because I already have similar views, but the big problem with you doing this is that when real solutions are offered, you say “No, no, no… that won’t do. Only my plan will be good enough.”
This trick is obvious, and it’s morally bankrupt. When talking to me, you would do well to stick to the topic at hand, rather than plugging traditionalism.
Now for my response:
Please note that my previous sentence said:
“guys like me who find value in the ways of traditional Western society don’t get much from the alt-right’s perspective on all of this, either.”
It was a general statement; not about you.
Wow, Mr. Stevens. It really doesn’t get any more clear than this. You unashamedly prove an entire section of my comment to be correct:
“We don;t need a three-point plan to defeat the threat of false accusations. When it comes to sexual crimes, restore the rational process of justice that is promised by the US Constitution.
That you would put forth this three-point plan that is completely impossible at the current time, rather than the simple solution I have just said, shows exactly the problem many of us have with the alt-right or traditionalists.
Rather than offer genuine solutions, they put forward nonsensical and untenable ideas meant to basically recruit men who want a solution into their ideological frame. PMAFT has been one of the premiere MRAs chronicling people who try this, and you have rightly been featured.”
In the case of the topic at hand, false rape accusations, “[taking] one part of the system and [fixing] it” would help men. To be sure, it helps in only one way of many that are needed, but it is something.
PMAFT is stretching a bit by saying you support the FRA industry, but for you to flat out say we cannot fix FRAs, and indeed, that doing so would accomplish little to nothing, makes it not as taut a stretch as I first thought.
Maybe, or maybe not. For the sake of argument I’ll presume that this is true (I think it is not true).
But even so, it provides an immediate solution to FRAs. Can you be honest and admit this?
I’d be happy to do that. Leftism will collapse spontaneously eventually, anyway.
But that’s not what we’re talking about right now. You’ve been taken to task about false rape accusations, not about how to achieve a better society.
Defeating an entire way of thinking that hundreds of millions of people share is not a rational proposal to reduce the impact of FRAs.
And, of course, it’s not a certain solution. Many conservatives enjoy protecting damsels in distress and will gladly take a woman’s sobbing over proper application of reason. Defeating liberalism, as difficult as that is, wouldn’t even be an end to the power of FRAs.
Why are you so averse to supporting men’s Constitutional guarantees of legal protections and due process when they have been accused of sexual crimes?
That is exactly what men had in traditional society and would presumably have once again in a resurgence of such a society, so it makes no sense for you to denigrate this as leading to or being a part of “liberalism.”
Eincrou, you’re starting to understand the problems that MRAs and MGTOW are having with socons/tradcons. Anytime real solutions are proposed for feminism or real work against feminism starts getting done socons/tradcons are always against it. This isn’t some sort of quest for ideological purity on the part of MRAs. Glenn Sacks, a liberal, has done more to fight feminism and defend fatherhood from feminism than all socons and tradcons combined. This should be a wake up call for conservatives, but instead they will help feminism instead either intentionally or unintentionally.
This is why over time MRAs and MGTOW end up loathing socons/tradcons. More or less, I used to be where you were, Eincrou, but the constant denouncing of proposed solutions and action towards those solutions by socons/tradcons wore me down.
Well, I’ve understood this since the beginning through reading people who write about it. This is the first that I’ve actually engaged in the discussion, and what I’ve read has been vindicated.
Hmm. Where do you suppose that I am in my thinking right now? And what were your views that you believe used to be concurrent with them? And lastly, where did you move to next?
I’ve read you for a while now, but your blogging style is more about specific items and less about your grand vision of the universe. I feel like I know little about your views, so that’s why I ask. If you could point to any previous posts, that would be great.
Personally, I wouldn’t say that I identify with any traditionalist I’ve yet come across, but I find value in the abstract ideas — even if not any one person who promotes them. I order them in my mind in a way that makes sense, minus the bullshit.
It’s tough to find anyone to agree with 95%+, but of the few I have that degree of agreement with, all of them are in the MRA-space and none in the traditionalist/alt-right. The errors in analysis they make are just too massive, in my opinion.
I got the, obviously mistaken, impression that you were more sympathetic to social and traditional conservatism. Years ago, I was more sympathetic to conservatism, but it became clear that when it came to feminism, conservatives of all stripes refused to act on their own stated beliefs. This is how I developed my antipathy to conservatism. I thought you were going through the same thing. Clearly, I was mistaken.
Basically I went from conservatism to what would now be called tea party conservatism to libertarianism to now pure mens rights. Conservatism, the tea party, and the libertarians have all been infected with feminism and refuse to defend their own political views against feminism. That’s how I ended up here.
That’s because I’m not interested in imposing a “grand vision of the universe” on everyone. What I’m interested in first and foremost is freedom. Outside of the MRM and MGTOW, everything has been infected with feminism. Liberals are feminists. Conservatives are feminists. Traditionalists are feminists. White nationalists are feminists, etc. Each one of these groups is interested in establishing a misandrist police state. Each group disagrees with the others on some of the minor details (and they will disagree violently over those minor details) but they are all about working towards a misandristic police state. I’m all about not wanting that to happen, and I think that technology is an important weapon in that battle.
I disagree. The fix you desire was attempted before, and we ended up here. You’re swatting at heads of the Hydra and never touching the neck.
You’re on the edge of dishonesty there.
My point: no matter what you do, until you rip out the source of feminism, you’ll re-create it.
Feminism is a type of liberalism.
We can agree on that, yes?
There has never been an attempt to fix what causes FRAs.
That’s not true anymore since feminism has infected almost everything else. The only things we can say for sure aren’t feminist now are the MRM and the MGTOW.
Because conservatism has been infected with feminism just as much as liberalism has. This is obvious given how you conservatives believe in feminist rape statistics. (We even have a historical example of a false rape industry in conservatism, the KKK who would lynch black men anytime a women shrieked that a black man raped her.) Constitutional freedoms and guarantees of legal protection and due process are what is needed here, and by your own admission you’re against that for sexual crimes. That’s feminism, period.
And where did I say I believed in those? Paleoconservative/deep ecologist here.
When you quoted, “An estimated 95% of the rapes that take place in the UK are never reported. Only 6.5% of reported rapes in England and Wales result in a conviction on the charge of rape. – The Guardian” and said in agreement with that, “Why so few convictions? Because in a time of sexual liberation, there’s almost no way to prove rape.” What The Guardian is quoting is feminist rape statistics. The whole “most rapes are never reported and in those that are reported there the rapists get off scot free” is standard feminist trope.
I support a lot of what traditionalists claim to stand for, and see the wisdom in it. But my issue is that they fully expect me to put myself in real danger to support a society and a gender that are completely undeserving of it.
The primary goal in things like addressing false rape is to minimize the risk, and the damage caused by them. When your house is on fire, you do not take that opportunity to install flame-retardant materials in your walls. You get out of the house and try to put out the fire.
At this point in time, a man of good character can do everything a traditionalist endorses and be in as much danger of FRA’s, divorce, cuckolding, family court nonsense, and domestic violence. And our reward for taking that risk is a woman saying “I promise not to do that to you.”
Then to fix the problem, we must fix the society.
I’m unclear on how returning to traditional gender roles would make false rape accusations carry more weight. If anything, they’d get us out of the he-said she-said zone.
When you have casual sex with a woman, you must be fully aware that she can turn around and accuse you of rape. You gave her that power. And it’s a mess in the courts, because there’s no evidence either way; it’s he-said she-said.
With traditional gender roles, we get none of that.
So what Brett really wants to stop is casual sex. He doesn’t even really address how to stop false rape charges. The issue for men is how to stop false rape charges, not how to stop casual sex.
Brett, “we” can’t fix society. Especially since that society doesn’t want to follow your beliefs. The existing society doesn’t even believe there is a problem.
With traditional gender roles, we get none of that.
Not true. Many a black man was lynched in the 19th century when he never even touched the woman who accused him.
You seem to think a false rape accusation means that sex always took place.. It sometimes happens even when there was no sex.
Plus, I see you don’t want to hold women responsible for their behavior.
Brett Stevens has won the debate.
the MRM is fundamentally leftwing.
If the MRM is really left wing, then the right wing supports the false rape industry.
Not necessarily. It could be the left wing supports the false rape industry, and the right wing has a long-term solution that MRAs are just not willing to see.
Here’s a good synopsis:
http://www.groin.com/sexual-liberation-enslaves/
Nothing in that link has to do with false rape accusations which are first and foremost a legal problem.
“that MRA’s are not willing to see”
——————————
We see exactly what you want. You want men and women to stop having casual sex and one night stands. According to you that is how to solve the false rape charges.
You aren’t directly addressing the problem of false rape charges. You trying to use the issue of fale rape charges to promote your conservative world view without even addressing the possible changes in police procedure and laws.
I’d like to know how Brett Stevens plans on addressing false rape accusations against married men having noncasual sex.
The answer is he doesn’t. I am certain he also doesn’t plan on addressing false rape accusations against men who have never had sex with their accuser.
I see nothing in what Brett Stevens wrote that indicates he things women should be held to the same standards of accountability as men are.
Brett Stevens apparently believes that women never lie about rape.
TFH, it’s clear that Brett Stevens thinks women never lie about rape. That’s clear from what I quoted in the post and his comments here.
Savrola -”Brett Stevens has won the debate.
the MRM is fundamentally leftwing.”
Well, at least you’re honest enough to admit that you cannot now, and never will be, able to refute what was said of Brett Stevens, the TardCon/SoCon support for women making false allegations (rape and/or DV)as it suits their selfish goals, and of the weakness of the TradCon/SoCon movements on the whole.
That said, I doubt if you could have present any weaker an argument had you tried to do so. ”the MRM is fundamentally leftwing”? Not only inaccurate by entirely meaningless as well.
And, even if the MRM was left-leaning, so what? It’s little more than the pot calling the kettle black. The right-wing (SoCons especially) are deeply steeped in their own version of feminism – gynocentrism – and the (so-called) men on the right are too cowardly to stand up either against the demands of their women nor to call them out on their increasingly bad behaviors. That “good feminism” (of the Sarah Palin’s and Michelle Bachmann’s of the world) is slowing taking over the supposedly conservative Christian movement entirely.
I watched from the vantage point of a long-time socially (and fiscally) conservative, regular-attending Churchian myself. I won’t even try to fit the litany of BS that I’ve personally observed, but I will note that it is nothing new. As a high-school aged teen in the late 70’s, I observed not only the rise in promiscuity amongst the “good” (upper-middle-income) Christian girls, but also the lopsided, misdirected, and entirely ineffective efforts of the church to “combat” this growing problem by doubling-down on their aggressive effort to shame and embarrass the young men of the church (who were NOT the men the girls were out enthusiastically f*cking, BTW) into treating the girls with respect and not pressuring them for sex.
It was, I came to realize, a cowardly shunning of their “duties” by conservative men who had already become too afraid to confront even the worst behaviors of women, and who were completely willfully blind to the moral and sexual culpability of not only their daughters, but their wives as well.
Thirty+ years of observing, and it hasn’t gotten any better.
So, call the MRM “leftwing”, then go and smugly pat yourself on the back and declare “victory”. It ac accomplishes nothing save to keep you from having to face-up to the truth.
I’m really quite indifferent to your middle-class liberal opinion.
You won’t like living in a Traditionalist society, but you will learn to deal with it.
Savrola – “I’m really quite indifferent to your middle-class liberal opinion.”
Much the same way that you are indifferent to logic and reason.
“You won’t like living in a Traditionalist society, but you will learn to deal with it.”
The only traditionalist society that I am likely to ever have to live under and deal with is an Islamic based system of Sharia Law (and, I’m being quite serious about that. Christian traditionalist have managed to isolate themselves into such small clusters of desperate hangers-on (in no small way due to their ability to alienate everyone else) that they cannot hope to have any meaningful influence over Western Society at-large.
Unfortunately, this is not the case with Islam, which is not only growing via higher birth-rate, but is also gaining new converts among western men who see hope in the rights and protections afforded men under Sharia.
I’m not pro-Sharia, not by any stretch. I’m just pointing out that it has a far greater chance of success than your sort of ‘traditionalist” isolationism.
Not Christian-Traditionalist.
Don’t think Mr. Stevens is, either.
Logic and reason are used by cowards to rationalize their weakness.
Because you’re a troll?
Your article reminded me of a very provocative post at Human-Stupidity.com
What’s so terrible about rape? Rape is not as bad as it used to be!
Real rape-rape is a crime, but its consequences are far less then they used to be, before abortion, birth control, sexual liberation and DNA testing.
Especially the new kinds of rape, like the 5 second rape, don’t deserve enormous punishment
"Rape is rape is rape" is a lie, Joe Biden! 20 different types of rape!
and the inversion of the burden of proof and the de-construction of due process.
Rape Laws: dismantling of due process explained step by step
Rape in this day and age is such a bizarro concept.
Rape only means something when women’s virtue is valued. When it’s not valued then rape is not serious crime. Rape as a crime today is simply another tool used to oppress males. Trying to argue fairness to a group of people who don’t care about rape more than it’s a useful tool used to oppress men is pointless.
Here’s the score: Feminists created the false rape society to punish men. Feminist use rape tales to scare parents who want to protect their daughters into voting for easy to convict rape laws. Arguing that this is unfair will get you no where because the propaganda is all the female side and men whining about things being unfair gets men no where. Arguing for the constitution gets you no where too. You can beat the feminists propaganda machine but not by appealing to parents and women.
Here’s the only workable solution: Inform men of the score and get them to vote not guilty in any marginal rape case they end up on the jury for. As it’s in most men’s best interest to prevent false rape the vote will come easily once they understand what’s going on. What’s that starts the plea bargains will be rejected and most rape accusations will be laughed at. This is the only way to protect men when 85% of society wants to see you raped in prison for a crime you didn’t commit. Men are pack animals. We all know there’s something wrong with the shape of society. We just need to be informed of what the problem is and how we can deal with it.
Hm; a strange debate. The notion that TradCons may have a problem addressing real-life political issues without drifting off into principle and ambitions far beyond the scope of realistic policy has something to it. On the other hand, there is something extremely odd about some parts of the critique here. People who are now “only involved in the men’s movement”? Why the hell for, pardon my French? That sounds bizarre, to say the least, and can only twist the political perspective in pretty much the same way as feminism does, at least that would be my guess.
Anyway: Brett is right insofar as you can’t combat gender identity politics by gender identity politics.
I do, however, agree that normal legal procedure should apply to rape as well. One should however be aware that this DOES mean that a hell of a lot of rapists will get off, simply because a rape that doesn’t harm too much physically and takes place without witnesses is virtually impossible to prove (and, feminist statistics or no feminist statistics, that’s how most rapes go down). And that brings us right back to Brett’s original suggestion: less casual sex, more normal, human, traditional behavior. Except this time around it’s to protect women from difficult-to-prove rape, rather than men from FRAs.
Given that I think sexual morality is VERY useful for a society, I suppose I don’t care if a change in sexual behavior comes from men being afraid of being FRA:d in the A, or women being afraid of being raped. It would be preferable if it came from something more decent entirely, but in the name of being “UnTradCon” I suppose I’ll have to go with the pragmatic approach…
Solguru – ” On the other hand, there is something extremely odd about some parts of the critique here. People who are now “only involved in the men’s movement”? Why the hell for, pardon my French? That sounds bizarre, to say the least, and can only twist the political perspective in pretty much the same way as feminism does, at least that would be my guess.”
What you seem to be (willfully and selectively) missing is that the whole of the Social-Conservative movement has itself become highly infected by the ideals of Feminism. Involving one’s self with that movement therefore means that one will be actively promoting the ideals of Feminism.
Where this can be seen primarily is in the (virtual) pedistalization of women by those in the Social-Conservative Traditional Christian-like (SoCon/Churchian), and their ongoing efforts to place the wants of women well ahead of the needs of men.
Why don’t SoCon men care about other men being ruined, and even killed, due to false rape allegations? Why don’t SoCon men care about women routinely utilizing false allegations of DV or chills sexual abuse to gain the upper-hand in custody/divorce-theft cases? Why don’t SoCon men care about men being humiliated and financially raped via cuckoldry and paternity fraud? Why don’t SoCon men care about men having not only their financial assets but also their children stolen away from them in the Anti-Family Courts?
It’s because, unlike women, men tend NOT to play exclusively for “Team Man”; and because they are much more interested in appeasing their women than they are in true justice and the good of society.
A slogan which could be aptly applied to must SoCon men would be ”I’ve never met a man who I wouldn’t throw under the bus to please a woman”. And, you really wonder why more enlightened men no longer chose to identify themselves with the quasi-religious traditionalist right?
Just for fun, listen to this anti-male screed from Social-conservative Devvy Kidd (full disclosure – I used to admire Devvy Kidd during my years as a SoCon Churchian). For a dedicated female pedistalizing, women-first, white-knights like yourself, they are your marching orders.
For enlighten men, it just more shaming language aimed at controlling men and demanding that they (unilaterally) sacrifice their own interests so as to more fully serve the perceived interests of women. It’s pretty much the same message from SoCon woman that we get from the worst man-hating gender-feminists (men watching football while women are being raped left-and-right in the streets):
Where Have All the Men Gone, by Devvy Kidd – Part 1 of 3
Solguru =- ”however, agree that normal legal procedure should apply to rape as well. One should however be aware that this DOES mean that a hell of a lot of rapists will get off, simply because a rape that doesn’t harm too much physically and takes place without witnesses is virtually impossible to prove (and, feminist statistics or no feminist statistics, that’s how most rapes go down). And that brings us right back to Brett’s original suggestion: less casual sex, more normal, human, traditional behavior. Except this time around it’s to protect women from difficult-to-prove rape, rather than men from FRAs.”
Of course, I cannot let this BS pass unchallenged. You show an extraordinary level of ignorance of the false rape issue. While it is certainly possible that some date-rapes are actual rapes, far more common are the situations in which women who consented or even initiated sex come to regret it later on, and only cry rape in hopes of rehabilitating their reputations. Whether or not you like the fact that people do engage in casual sex, it does not justify the great harms that men alone face if a woman decides her reputation is more valuable than his life.
And, that’s not the entirety of the FRA issue. Most of the straight-up false rape allegations (not “he said/she said” date-rape?) made by women are know to be for the purposes of creating an alibi (usually for her own illicit sexual activities), for revenge against a man (often for reasons which never involved any actual sex), for attention (again, often when no sexual activity has occurred), and increasingly, for financial gains (everything for avoiding paying their cab fares to full-on extortion) [please, please try to deny these things are happening so that I can inundate you with examples].
Like most SoCon female pedistalizing white-knights, you see the issue as being entirely up to men to control (via sexual avoidance), and you give the women a free-pass, pretending that women aren’t every bit as sexual culpable as are men – and perhaps even worse, these days.
Men keeping-it-in-their pants isn’t a panacea (I could cite you and example of one young man who declined a drunken woman’s sexual advances only to have her accuse him of rape in retaliation for his refusal of her). What needs to happen is that women who often quite flippantly make FRA’s need to face some real punishments (legally and financially) for there to be and disincentives to them lying about rape. The problem is that (as has been noted above) SoCons don’t want real solution to problems, especially if those solutions mean that women will be held to some responsibility.
So, instead, you will willing join arms with your gender-feminist allies in decrying reforms aimed at punishing women (in any way) and continuing the lie that “women never lie” about rape.
You SoCon-types make a lot of noise about being anti-feminist, but you sure seem more than willing to carry their water on the important issues.
We Traditionalists oppose all legislation which seeks to protect the rights of the individual, much less that of a sex particular sex or race.
Well,
At least you’re honest about it
It seems rather an ill-considered position to take, and one that is unlikely to provide any net benefit to society at-large. but, at least you admit to holding it as your position so that more enlighten people can see the futility of supporting your cause.
Wait a minute, wait a minute!
I take it I’ve been duped? Your really just posing as a TradCon in order to discredit their movement by making the most preposterous statements, and attributing them to TradCon political/social/legal philosophy.
That is a clever way to discredit TradCons, I must admit.
Lol.
Traditionalism is not a popular movement, and therefore it seeks no support, especially from weaklings like yourself, who are useless to any kind of struggle.
You will find all my statements to be accurate with Traditionalist doctrine and in stark opposition to your desire to conserve Jacobinism.
Talk about your weaklings: was your response supposed to be an insult?
To call MRA’s and libertarians Jacobins demonstrates either a serious lack of understanding of MRA’s, libertarians, or the term Jacobin.
Sure, Lol; but the thing is, I’m laughing AT you, not with you.
Laugh all day if you want to.
You’re irrevelent. as are all MRAs and libertarians.
anyone who believes in the concept of “rights’ today is a Jacobin, btw..
Thank you!
To be proclaimed “irrelevent” by a dipshit is truly the highest of praise.
The justification which allows many a loser to sleep at night.
U mad, bro?
Is ANY consent actually real? (Think carefully about this.)
If no then why do we pretend it is?
If yes then why do we give women the profound and unquestioned power to give or withhold it?
well, you’ve hit the nail on the head.