Stop the violence

Photo collage at left by Traci Fant. I am behind Gregg in the upper right photo.





Thursday's radio show, with activist Traci Fant, was so intense, I honestly didn't know how to write about it.

I felt that we were finally doing the important work, telling the crucial stories that need to be told. I heartily recommend the show, which is downloadable at the link, above.

Our show was titled "Stopping Violence in upstate South Carolina" and I was deeply honored to be included. Our guests included anti-violence activists Al Harris and Taurice Bussey, as well as Karl Daniel of our local Empowerment Zone, which hosts the upstate's landmark Voices Against Violence event every year. As I said, very intense, very personal.

And today, we hear that another violent episode has happened, another school shooting in Roswell, NM. Middle school, this time.

I began today's radio show by asking, what is happening?

It seems to be the boys who have no role models, no one to care about them.

~*~

I would like to ask the Men's Rights Activists to stop fussing at feminists and posting their endless quarrels online, and put their money where their mouth is: find a young male without a role model and take him under your wing. Teach him what you know. Instead of MRAs getting all worked up over females, how about doing something for the males?

Obviously, they need you.

To the Christians: do as Karl Daniel is doing, and reach out to the youth who need a father-figure. Leave the politics alone, and worry about the boys instead.

Share your money, power and privilege. Try to make a difference in their lives.

To the Republicans: stop obsessing over guns, and instead, start obsessing over why these young men feel they need to act out in this way.

Do SOMETHING instead of blaming others.

~*~

PS: Shout out to our new sponsor YELLOW MAMA MUSIC! (Whilst shopping for musical instruments at Yellow Mama, you can also pick up a copy of radio-show guest author David Kouvek's book THE PENDULUM.)

*More photos of our participants at my Flickr page.

Enjoy the silence... and other updates

From Pendleton Street Arts District here in Greenville. Not sure what the wheel is about, or the sun nuts, but its art, so its okay.


More on my Flickr page.


~*~




As I sit here worrying over whether the entire upstate is being slowly poisoned with radioactivity, I've decided to post some links I've been mulling over.






The adoptive parents of Baby Veronica, not satisfied that they WON their big case, are now suing the Cherokee Nation for court fees. (Do you BELIEVE these people?) They are seeking a cool one million dollars:

NOWATA, Okla. — Attorneys for the adoptive parents of a 4-year-old girl caught up in a custody dispute are seeking $1 million in legal fees from the Cherokee Nation and the girl’s biological father, who is a member of the tribe.

Attorneys representing Matt and Melanie Capobianco have filed paperwork seeking the legal fees incurred while fighting the lengthy custody battle over 4-year-old Veronica.

In September, Dusten Brown handed Veronica over to the Capobiancos after the Oklahoma Supreme Court lifted an emergency stay keeping the girl in Oklahoma.

The Tulsa World reports attorneys for the Capobiancos are seeking $1 million to be split among four law firms. The newspaper reports none of the money would go to the Capobiancos.

Attorneys for Brown and the Cherokee Nation declined to comment on the filing.

~*~

Google has been ordered to block images in a privacy case. This may set a precedent, since as you know, ordinary people do not have the right to make Google do squat... but rich people (specifically Max Mosley) sure do! (Biographical note: Max is the son of Oswald Mosley, whom non-British rock fans mostly recognize as the subject of "Less Than Zero" by Elvis Costello.) According to the New York Times:

LONDON — A French court ruled Wednesday that Google must remove from its Internet search results all images of a former Formula One car racing chief at an orgy. The ruling in the privacy case could have ramifications for the tech giant’s operations across Europe.

Max Mosley, the former president of the International Automobile Federation, had filed the lawsuit in September to force Google to automatically filter from its search engine links to images from a British newspaper report in 2008 that included photos and a video of Mr. Mosley participating in a sadomasochistic sex party.

The former Formula One head successfully sued the News of the World in a London court for breach of privacy and was awarded £60,000, or about $96,000, in damages.

On Wednesday, the Tribunal de Grande Instance in Paris backed Mr. Mosley’s attempts to force Google to block references to the images from appearing in Google’s search results worldwide. The company said it would appeal the decision.

Mr. Mosley argued that French law makes it illegal to take and distribute images of an individual in a private space without that person’s permission. But Google said that would limit freedom of speech, forcing the company to block search results without any person or court overseeing the context in which the images appeared.

Analysts said the ruling against Google could lead to greater restrictions on what was accessible through search results and could prompt more people to demand that the United States technology company remove references to their private activities.

“At this point in time, the pendulum is swinging toward individuals’ privacy and away from freedom of speech,” said Carsten Casper, a privacy and security analyst at the consulting firm Gartner in Berlin.

...

As part of the settlement ordered by the French court on Wednesday, Google will have to filter out nine images of Mr. Mosley from its worldwide search results. The company must pay him 1 euro in compensation and it will be fined 1,000 euros every time that an image is found through its search engine, starting at the beginning of next year.

“It’s a fair decision,” said Clara Zerbib, a lawyer at the law firm Reed Smith in Paris who represented Mr. Mosley in the lawsuit. “This case isn’t about censoring information, but about complying with French law.”

...

The lawsuits relate to a 2008 report in The News of the World, a British newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., which was later closed because of its ties to a phone hacking scandal. The article described Mr. Mosley’s activities as a “sick Nazi orgy.” The allegations were particularly damaging, as Mr. Mosley is the son of Sir Oswald Mosley, a pre-World War II-era British fascist, and Mr. Mosley had sought to distance himself from his father’s activities.

By pursuing legal action in France and Germany, Mr. Mosley was taking advantage of more stringent data privacy legislation in those countries compared with either the United States or Britain, according to privacy analysts. In France, for example, it is a criminal offense to record someone else without his or her consent in a private space.

Google is facing a number of privacy lawsuits in Europe.

~*~

How would the world's coastlines look if all the ice melted?

Well, for starters, Florida would be history. Here is the interactive map.

Charleston, Hilton Head and Myrtle Beach would also be gone, meaning that the South Carolina coast would start somewhere around Columbia, by my reckoning.

~*~

I am opposed to assisted suicide. I thought I might have said this before on this blog... but then again, when I do a search, find that I have hedged and have not stated my opposition outright, so here it is: No.

And I recently remembered the reasons for my opposition, whilst reading Bad Cripple's eloquent blog. He is far more poetic and personal on the topic than I could ever be:

I think we people with a disability are feared. We are the one and only minority that can be joined via illness or accident. Our atypical bodies also symbolically represent the limits of medical science. Please do not talk to me about joint decision making strategies between physician and patients. Do not talk to me about informed consent. Do not talk to me about patient centered care. These buzz words are cultural ideals we aspire to reach. I am not suggesting we do away with these concepts. They should be valued. But my reality, my experiences when I try to access health care is radically different. [UK-Guardian writer Stella] Young quotes Marilyn Golden, a long time opponent of assisted suicide who perceptively observed: "we are asking the wrong questions when it comes to assisted death: We have to ask, do people with disabilities have true choice and self determination, in terms of living outside of nursing homes? In terms of housing that is truly affordable and accessible? In terms of the kind of services that really allow them to lead meaningful lives? In many cases, no."

These are the sort of questions we should be discussing. Why do people, all people, want to die? What drives a person to think death is preferable to living? Pain is not the primary variable. People choose to die because they fear losing their independence and autonomy. And here the link between end of life issues and disability is glaringly obvious to me. When I see a person with a disability I think of all the things a person can do. The same can be said for any person approaching the end of life. I think what can this person do? How can their life even with death impending be enhanced? This is not typically how others with no exposure to disability or end of life issues think. Instead we isolate the disabled and elderly--a historic pattern we have yet to break.

~*~

Nico Lang writes at Salon: America still can't accept Lady Gaga's bisexuality, or anybody else's. The title says it all.

The comments are also very interesting and instructive.

~*~

Camille Lewis shared with me this article about icky local Tea Party busybody Harry Kibler:

Kibler’s approach to political activism doesn’t rely on subtlety and consensus-building. He prefers open and direct confrontation, and his energy is inexhaustible. I recently spoke with him about his latest project, an effort to stop the Greenville County Council from imposing a one percent sale tax for the purpose of road maintenance.

“I’ve had so dad gum much fun doing this,” he tells me, “it ought to be against the law.”

Would that it were so.

Read it and weep.

~*~

MORE:

:: Today on our radio show, the redoubtable Occupy the Microphone, we discussed the case of George Stinney, a 14-year-old who was executed by the state of South Carolina in 1944. Currently, there is a renewed effort to clear his name and get his conviction overturned.

:: What happened to the Middle Class? Ask Alice. (Minneapolis Star Tribune)

:: I love this! ----> The Myth of Re-enchantment (thinkBuddha.org)

:: The Lack of Gentle Platonic Touch in Men’s Lives is a Killer (GoodMenProject)

:: Hope your Veterans Day has been good; don't forget my post last year on this holiday. It is even more accurate now than it was then. Take heed and beware.

:: And finally, here is your CUTE QUOTIENT CONTENT for this month... and possibly for the whole year. I have bookmarked this, and I go to it when I need to feel calm, centered and happy. TOO CUTE FOR WORDS: Baby Goats and Friends. SQUEEEEEEEE! Gonna die. Gonna. Just. Die. (And they upload more all the time, from everywhere.)

~*~

Due to Daylight Savings Time, its dark when we leave the radio station now.

There is nothing quite as magical as driving through the crisp, autumnal dark, peering at all the headlights... and then Enjoy the Silence by Depeche Mode pops up on your radio dial. Otherworldly, perfect.

All I ever wanted, all I ever needed... is for special moments like this to go on forever. :)

Enjoy the Silence - Depeche Mode

The AA ballad of Hugo Schwyzer

My enduring silence on this past summer's Hugo Schwyzer debacle, has been wholly deliberate. For those who need the background, check it out HERE, HERE and HERE. (Warnings out the wazoo, as we say here in the South.)





One of those primary "recovery rules" is that you do not judge another addict, or doubt that they are sober.

Just look at the fallout here when I (correctly) called the cause of Brittany Murphy's death before it was official. I was considered ableist and out of line. (And when I was proven right, none of these people apologized to me either.) I learned from that, and decided I would be more circumspect the next time.

And so initially, I did not plan on saying anything at all about Hugo's now-famous, bizarre meltdown. But since then, folks have pointedly asked me for my opinion, since I mentioned him in my post about my own AA anniversary... and so I have now decided to comment at length.

~*~

At some point, I think after I read the famous jizz piece, I decided feminist-professor Hugo was using and/or drinking again.

The problem was (see Brittany Murphy, Michael Jackson, et al), these were undoubtedly perfectly-legal, professionally-vetted, prescribed meds that he had started abusing again... and this is one reason hard-core Alcoholics Anonymous people like my sponsor were so categorically anti-drug. Prescription drugs are still drugs. Of course there are always "good reasons" for them; I got a million Rxs in my life, with no trouble. Had good reasons for them all. Primary among these reasons: I was an addict, I wanted them, and I knew how to get them.

The onslaught of anti-depressants, sleeping aids and anti-anxiety meds for recovering addicts/alcoholics, has been an unmitigated disaster. Its also an old feud within AA and NA (Narcotics Anonymous), as well as within other recovery circles. The concept is that people were "self-medicating" with alcohol (and so what else is new) and so they just needed the "correct" meds and ... then they somehow magically won't want those naughty "bad" drugs anymore. This is self-serving, narcissistic, addict-apologist bullshit. Always has been. Thing is, those of us who clung to this uncool, supposedly-outmoded view (that it's bullshit), invariably lost the war. Drugs flooded into recovery circles like the proverbial tidal wave. (NOTE: I have been alcohol-free for 32 years, and I refer to the advent of Prozac and similar drugs in the early 90s.)

At one point, I refused to sponsor people who were using prescription drugs to 'cushion their fall' into reality. And I learned (to my alarm) that I could spot them fairly easily. They didn't LEARN anything. They retained many/most of their negative personality-issues and character defects. They didn't "work on themselves"--and I think it's because, frankly, they didn't feel enough pain to find it necessary to change. Pain is instructional. Depression is instructional. Guilt and shame are instructional. When you do not allow yourself to FEEL these emotions/states of mind (self-medicating, the reason you drank in the first place), you do not learn the REASONS for them, which are usually: personality disorders, erroneous views of reality, childhood traumas left to fester and infect the psyche, self-esteem in the toilet, PTSD run amok, a puritanical/punitive world-view, etc. Drugs are a band-aid solution. As soon as I would get close to any of these issues in a sponsoree, they would have a meltdown (much like Hugo's!) and then go robotic; that particular, tell-tale type of robotic-reaction that is made possible by the psychological BUFFER OF CHEMICALS that is DRUGS.

No work could get done.

"I think I have PTSD," says the recovering person.

"Let's work on it," I'd say.

(((HYSTERIA))) followed by the robotic, predictably drugged-up countenance.

Like clockwork.

I would finally cut them loose, and I'd say, get another sponsor or come back to me when you cut out the drugs. I don't care if Sigmund fucking Freud himself gave them to you, NO. I will not work with people who are buffering the world with drugs. WON'T DO IT. And most of these people would hang around awhile, then leave. This has become known as the "revolving door of recovery"--because it just happens over and over and these people never learn to DO WITHOUT SUBSTANCES. TOTALLY.

At this point, readers are thinking/saying, "You are not a professional! Danger, Will Robinson, danger!" And they are right. I am not. That is how AA works, and how it worked for me. I do not go to professionals, I do not BELIEVE in bullshit elitist, over-educated professionals, who have over-prescribed drugs to the point that we now have multiple-epidemics of junkies on the level we have never before had in history. PROFESSIONALS ARE PART OF THE FUCKING PROBLEM. I believe in peers, I believe in equality, I believe in people who have been through what I have been through, I believe in the power of regular human beings connecting with each other. That is what worked for me, and I still believe in it. Professionals pretty much destroyed AA, as did the courts forcing people to attend meetings after being arrested for drunken driving or drug possession (in direct violation of the 11th Tradition, which originally stated that AA membership should be based on "attraction rather than promotion"). The overarching resentment of these court-ordered maybe-alcoholics just smoldered, and their anger was palpable in many meetings, destroying the cozy family-atmosphere we once enjoyed. Meanwhile, the professionals brought in all kinds of psychobabble and Dr Feelgood jargon, correcting the scruffy street-people and (ever so politely!) reinterpreting their experience for them with big words and medical concepts, alienating them even further.

As I said, unmitigated disaster.

In short, old style AA might have helped Hugo. The moment I learned he was still "on meds" (which I'm sure were duly prescribed by one of the all-holy and infallible professionals) --I knew the implosion was just a matter of time. I just waited for it, wincing, because I figured it would be a flame-out of Biblical proportions. (I have also been waiting for something like this from Glenn Beck, and he has disappointed me so far, unless he has been able to keep it out of the media.) I have seen countless of these in AA. It usually manifests in these kinds of people (Hugo and Glenn Beck), who make "recovery" part of their identity. It's okay to do this for awhile, even necessary at first. (e.g. I once saw myself as party animal, so it was necessary at first to see myself as recovery animal; I had to put something IN ITS PLACE as a substitution.) But eventually, the idea should be that we MOVE ON. (I have not been to an AA meeting in about a dozen years now.) After a decent length of time has passed, we should even be able to figure out if indeed a certain drug might be helpful and/or good for us. I am old, and my joints are falling apart; there ARE good drugs, and I fully understand that now. Similarly, a toke at the bluegrass concert, did not hurt me. I have learned the MIDDLE PATH at long last, but only because I made learning that a priority. I did not want to be dependent on AA (or drugs) my whole life. I know the important thing: my drug of choice, alcohol, and highly addictive drugs (Valium, sleeping pills, Oxys, opiates, meth, questionable "appetite suppressants" such as the now-disgraced Preludin, which I ate like candy) are totally off limits for me. I avoid them like the plague. I do not take any psych meds daily, since I believe they interfere with my judgement and make it more likely that I will forget this personal boundary and break this rule. I have managed to maintain my sobriety, although sometimes tenuous, through remembering my triggers: bad temper, familial stress (and attendant co-dependency; trying to run other people's lives to my specifications), feelings of inadequacy, hypochondria... and more importantly, I know where all of these traits came from and how they originated in my life (meaning: I no longer hate myself for them).

I DID THE WORK, SO I KNOW THESE THINGS.

Hugo didn't. So he doesn't.

One of his triggers: WOMEN. He should have been forbidden from any and all relationships for a period of time, until his sponsor told him it was safe, and then the sponsor should have properly vetted the relationship. No sex; celibacy until you figure out what sex is doing to your life and why you compulsively seek it out. (This is true for MEN AND WOMEN regarding what is called "sex addiction" --which often goes hand-in-hand with other addictions, just as co-dependency and eating disorders do.) I know, this sounds cultish, but THAT IS WHAT I MEAN: Hugo went to the new, improved (snark), Rxs-for-everybody AA, not the cold-showers-and-root-canal version I went to in 1982. When I entered AA, NOT cooperating was really not an option if you wanted to hang around for an extended length of time. The Alcoholics Anonymous I went to was categorical: No serious decisions for a year. This rule includes jobs (if you are employed, do not change jobs or quit your job; if unemployed, try to stretch this out as long as you can), relationships (no changing them, no divorces, no "falling in love", no fucking around), and living arrangements, unless you are in an emergency situation (and many addicts are). Every stress-making decision was talked over carefully first, in meetings or with your sponsor. Everything you did and thought was thoroughly interrogated and examined, first by yourself, and if you still weren't sure, you brought it to "group conscience." [When I was faced with attending my grandmother's wake in Indiana, after only six slim months of sobriety, I fully realized this would be a rowdy and hyper-emotional occasion in MY hard-drinking family. The group counseled me, en masse, do not stay with a family member, stay in a motel instead. Wow, I said, isn't that RUDE? Someone replied, "Is getting howling drunk and fucking everything up rude?" Hmm, good point. I stayed in the motel. I managed. It was okay. I got through it, and the group's collective wisdom was the reason why.]

It was a hard-ass approach, but it is the one I think is necessary, because ADDICTS LIE TO THEMSELVES EVEN MORE THAN THEY DO TO EVERYONE ELSE.

And that way of life now seems extinct. I mourn its loss. It might have saved Hugo.

This is why I did not initially comment on Hugo's flame-out, because I knew I would have to say all of this. I think recovery itself FAILED HUGO, because it got soft.

In fact, let me be clear: the new and improved (snark again) recovery was TAILOR MADE for attention-whores like him. He then could use the fact of recovery to become a star and pump up his self-importance and toxic ego even more. For some of us, particularly down here in the working classes, addiction and alcoholism are still stigmatized; even admitting it is in your past, is still stigmatized. I often do not tell people, unless they finally ask me if there is a reason I never drink.

We don't have "stars" in the working classes (who do not eventually become recovery professionals themselves)... you have to be an academic or writer or media-figure to be a "recovery star"--and Hugo was. He used this fact about himself to boost his star-appeal, which tells me that he still hadn't worked on one of his major personality defects: attention-whoredom.

This has been difficult to write. In AA circles, what I have just done is called "taking Hugo's inventory" and is considered really bad form. I apologize, but felt it was necessary after I was asked the 6th or 7th time, and by people I deeply respect. I "defended" Hugo the last time (actually I just said he needed to be able to write honestly about what had happened--although interestingly, I don't). After his most recent flip-out, a couple of people got nasty with me and asked me if I had rescinded that post. No, I haven't--but then, I was writing it about someone I thought was actually recovering. (Notably: I had not seen the infamous jizz piece at that time.)

I would issue a warning, just in general: If you see people leave AA and then take up with some hard-core religion? Warning. DANGER. This person needs rules and boundaries, and they feel they are not getting them. So, they/we go where there are rules, lots and lots of rules. I did, my sponsor did, Glenn Beck did, and I notice, Hugo did. It is NEVER a good sign. It can work for some of us, as a sort of "transition out" of AA, a halfway-house into the regular world. But for others, it just means CARTE BLANCHE and gives them a whole new playground to play in. Aha, they think, I just needed GOD! I was never an alcoholic, I just needed JEEZUS! (And since we know that now, why not have a drink to celebrate?)

Watch out. As the Grateful Dead song said, trouble ahead, trouble behind. Hugo easily found the trouble, and took a nice long bath in it.

If AA had stayed true to itself, the revolving door of recovery would not exist, and the revolving door into the Church/Synagogue/Mosque/Ashram wouldn't either. As it is, we have all been betrayed, and Big Pharm bears a lot of the blame. But we have also lost our way, we have also declined the rougher, more unpleasant aspects of recovery, such as taking a big, bold look at ourselves as we really and truly are, putting all those pesky psychic-dramas under the microscope for close inspection. We have not wanted to look at the damage we have done--at least I never did. This means people like Hugo can write dramatic accounts of almost-murder/suicides and make them sound like Movies-of-the-Week, instead of the horrific, desperate acts they actually are (if his dramatic tale is true at all, of course. I have come to doubt it, or at least, wonder what parts of the story were edited/left out/trumped up, etc.)

I hope this is a satisfactory reply to the people who have asked me to comment on Hugo. I did not mean it to be so long... but then again, that is why I didn't want to write about him in the first place. I do see Hugo as a casualty of his own hubris... but the difference is, in the old days, he couldn't have used recovery as an excuse to GET WORSE. And now, it seems to be a rather common phenomenon.

I weep for those of us who will never recover. I hope Hugo can. But first, he needs to shut up, and for a good long time, too. Attention is his enemy. Although for some, it is a balm, since they were often totally ignored and relegated to the back of the room. That's the thing: One size does not fit all.

And once upon a time, AA knew that and counseled us accordingly.

I miss those days.

Tuesday links with Crazy Horse

At left: Mac Arnold and Plate Full O Blues at Fall for Greenville... he totally burned the place down! AWESOMENESS! I got more photos on my Flickr page, so be sure to check out my photos of Mac and his famous gas-can guitar.

INCENDIARY BLOOZ!

~*~




:: My favorite reading of the week is Thomas Frank's TED TALKS ARE LYING TO YOU, which is just so right-on. An excerpt:

Those who urge us to “think different,” in other words, almost never do so themselves. Year after year, new installments in this unchanging genre are produced and consumed. Creativity, they all tell us, is too important to be left to the creative. Our prosperity depends on it. And by dint of careful study and the hardest science — by, say, sliding a jazz pianist’s head into an MRI machine — we can crack the code of creativity and unleash its moneymaking power.

That was the ultimate lesson. That’s where the music, the theology, the physics and the ethereal water lilies were meant to direct us. Our correspondent could think of no books that tried to work the equation the other way around — holding up the invention of air conditioning or Velcro as a model for a jazz trumpeter trying to work out his solo.

And why was this worth noticing? Well, for one thing, because we’re talking about the literature of creativity, for Pete’s sake. If there is a non-fiction genre from which you have a right to expect clever prose and uncanny insight, it should be this one. So why is it so utterly consumed by formula and repetition?

Read it all! The next time you hear the word "creativity" spoken from a calm NPR-sounding voice (and my radio consigliere, Gregg Jocoy, can do a bang-up NPR-announcer impersonation!) --you should keep this essay in mind.

In fact, I may never watch a TED talk again! (Jimi Hendrix reference: "You'll never hear surf music again")

~*~

:: A nasty Georgia Tech frat-boy email has recently gone viral, since it's title--"Luring Your Rapebait"--was guaranteed to get attention. It's offensive, and appears to be one of those GAME things (more about which in due course) that plague the internet like winter head-colds.

Danny, who is no feminist, politely takes it on in his ever-graceful fashion. His post is titled Open Letter to a Frat Brother on the view of masculinity:

I can understand that sex is a desirable thing but I worry that you, just like many others, place too much priority on having sex with women as being a necessary part of masculinity.

Have you considered what affects this pressure can have on guys, namely guys who are in a position where they need to gain the approval of others? Don't you think that pressure can lead to them doing things that range from immoral to illegal in order to gain favor and approval?

Yes, you can say that "They choose to do that stuff." That would be true. But why do you exert such pressure in the first place? Why expect those pledges to be on such a vigilant lookout for sex partners? Why not just let nature take care itself and just throw a party and if people want to get together they get together on their own rather because they might get tossed out of the party and shamed for not looking for women?

Why, indeed?

Maybe because "looking for women" is the very DEFINITION of manhood, for these sorts of guys. The idea of NOT looking for women?!? Well, what ELSE would they do?

These men are conditioned from an early age, that this is "what men do." They don't know how to have a good time and just BE. The female equivalent are the Sex and The City gals who spend most of their evenings fussing over their appearance, and won't dance or get rowdy because they might sweat or mess up their hair.

Quite possibly, they deserve each other. I just wish they wouldn't clutter up the parties and fun spaces for everyone else.

~*~

:: If you need something to explain the government shutdown to you, have a look on my Tumblr, where I quoted from a great article on No More Mister Nice Blog, titled The Punishers Want To Run The Country or We Are All Tipped Waitstaff Now.

Check it out, it's a gem. It explains so much. (And if you are now/ever were a restaurant server, required reading.)

~*~

:: There has been LOTS of arguing in cyberspace over the "Pick Up Artist" (PUA) movement, men who claim to know all the evo-psych rules of just exactly what makes those stubborn, mysterious sexy ladies put out. It's called GAME, and they endlessly talk about it on their many forums and blogs (warning: those link are gross, but fairly typical). Like most evo-psych fans, they make everything that happens fit into their concept of GAME, which is damned annoying. (It's exactly the same way very religious people will inevitably see everything that happens as being an answer to a prayer.) This is why you can't argue with them using facts; they will simply claim that your facts prove --GAME is CORRECT!--right after they tweak them a few times, or twenty.

It gets old, so I stopped bothering some time ago... or even reading. If I see a male blogger refer to GAME, I reach for my mouse, clickety-click, gone, GONE WITH THE WIND.

But Echidne recently found an intrinsic contradiction in the statement of Roosh, one of the BIGGEST of the BIG GAME THEORISTS. Roosh went to Denmark (he writes books about how to apply GAME in every country; getting-laid travel guides for men), where apparently, he says GAME doesn't work:

Roosh calls [his book about Denmark] the “most angry book” he’s ever written. “This book is a warning of how bad things can get for a single man looking for beautiful, feminine, sexy women.”

What’s blocking the pussy flow in Denmark? The country’s excellent social welfare services. Really.

...

Danish women “won’t defer to your masculinity,” he writes. “They can fuck you, but no more. What they do have are pussies and opinions you don’t really care about hearing. That’s it.” Advocates of Nordic social democracy should be thrilled to discover a perk of gender-equalizing work-family reconciliation policies: they combat skeeviness.

Roosh comes to the conclusion that women who aren’t as dependent on men for financial support are not susceptible to the narcissistic salesmanship that constitutes phase one: “attraction.” That’s why Roosh fails to advance to the second level—”trust”—without being creepy. Thus “seduction” is almost always out of the question.

Wow, during this awful government shutdown, we see STILL ANOTHER great reason for the welfare state! Then again, haven't anti-feminist conservatives like George Gilder always argued that welfare services for women and children would inexorably lead to women becoming far more picky about who they, um, spend their time with?

The reality of WELFARE means women won't experience the material desperation men have always depended on, to make their case.

Echidne is all over it:

But that refutes his evo-psycho theories about what women want! If women were hard-wired to go for the dominant growling alpha monkey, then women would do that even in Denmark. That they do not suggests that dating rules and what appeals to people is also culture-dependent and affected by economic realities.

Whatever happened to Neil Young's "Welfare Mothers make better lovers?"

I guess the official PUA verdict is in: No they don't.

~*~

Speaking of which, I used to wonder if that was a sexist song or not. During the time *I* was a welfare mother, I remember feeling like persona non grata, not like I was considered a better lover or any kind of bargain. In fact, it seemed to me that this one fact about me would easily scare people away in droves, potential lovers and friends alike. (Maybe they were afraid I would ask them for money?)

I used to listen to the song ruefully and wonder JUST WHO he was talking about, hoping that maybe I was getting some good press in the bargain. But I was pretty sure I wasn't... hard to believe that love is free, now.

But whatever else, it sure does ROCK.

Welfare Mothers - Neil Young and Crazy Horse

Government shutdown, redux

At left: The New Yorker's fascinating and educational map of exactly where the Republican "Suicide Caucus" is located.

As you can see, my congressional district is present and accounted for. (Is that depressing or what?)








In sordid political news: If the Republicans don't get their way, which they won't, they are threatening to shut down the government.

I can still remember the last time they pulled this childish stunt, under the auspices of awful Newt Gingrich, currently fattening himself up on the CNN dime... the very same evilll liberal media he used to make his living by trashing on the GOP-chicken-supper circuit.

How does that work exactly? You trash them and they gratefully respond with a high-profile, cushy, pricey gig? (And has that ever happened to you?) Becoming an elected politician seems to guarantee a lifelong livelihood for these no-talent hacks... and then they want to deny the rest of us the (government-sponsored, taxpayer-provided) health care they have always enjoyed.

Again, how does that work, exactly?

For comedy relief, Gingrich just appeared on CNN's Piers Morgan show, assuring us that this government-shutdown is no big deal. (Tell that to the military personnel, fire-fighters and others who won't get paid for risking their lives.) Newtie actually seems annoyed that anybody would get upset over this pesky little incident. (And if it's no big deal, why did NEWT HIMSELF use it as a weapon in 1995, unless he wanted it to HURT?!)

The blazing, horrific hypocrisy is as stomach-turning as it is brazen. (More here and here.)

~*~

I have been grossly negligent regarding our recent WOLI shows... and to provide a partial remedy, here are some links, with copious apologies for being so preoccupied:

Monday, September 23, 2013
Death of professor shows America values sports more than education

Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Has Dusten Brown given up hope in custody fight for daughter?

Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Senator Lindsey Graham's opponents oppose his stance on Syria

Thursday, September 26, 2013
Senators proposing "real" reforms to NSA

Friday, September 27, 2013
Where does Senator Tim Scott stand on mass incarceration and racial disparities in South Carolina?

Monday, September 30, 2013 (today)
Is US government shutdown imminent?

~*~

Other interesting stuff:

:: Amanda Knox's retrial commences in Italy, without her presence. (CBS News)

:: I've written here a couple of times about Damien Echols, West Memphis Three Death Row inmate. Since his release, he has settled in Salem, Massachusetts (notorious for the historic witch trials) with his wife, Lorri. In a strange turn of events, Michael Blatty, son of famous Exorcist author William Peter Blatty (!), has made Damien's controversial presence in Salem his raison d'être.

It is a patently bizarre tale from Boston Magazine, which just adds to the continuing horror-story elements of Damien's life:

It’s hard to pinpoint when he lost his anonymity—when people started to notice, and talk—but very quickly he became part of Salem legend: Did you hear that Damien Echols moved to town? They whispered it, waiting to buy scratch tickets at 7-Eleven, in the locker room at the Y, over tea at Gulu-Gulu. Some in town were excited, fueled by stories in the local papers with headlines like “From Death Row to Witch City.” Of course, he had not expected to go entirely unnoticed. Not like he had in New York, where he’d first begun the walking as a way of burning through fear. In New York no one paid attention to anyone else, which meant he could walk the streets of Chinatown for hours and hours without interruption or incident, learning to reacclimate to humanity after 18 years in exile.

But in Salem, people took notice. They began coming up to him on the elliptical. Approaching him as he settled in with a pot of tea. Chronicling his every move. They were not always welcoming. At one point, someone etched a message into the side of a women’s bathroom stall in the East India Square Mall: “Murderers Walk Free.”

Read it all.

:: The Foo Fighters song, My Hero, kept running through my head as I read this one -- The Lie of Heroes: How Kerouac Almost Killed Me:

The lone wolf, right? That’s the image we get when we see some of our heroes, forsaking mediocrity or bureaucracy or blatant cowardice and heading off into the unknown, alone and full of purpose.

There aren’t any lone wolves; that’s another fiction, another lie. Wolves are pack animals, like humans, social creatures. The only ones who go off on their own are diseased or ostracized.

Lone wolves tend to die rather quickly.

Correction and coming attractions

Without further ado, let me add a necessary and timely correction concerning the loony tune Elvis impersonator I mentioned in my last post. He turned out to be totally innocent and all charges were dropped. Nah, go on... you mean law enforcement can MAKE MISTAKES? (((shock)))

From the Chicago Tribune:

U.S. prosecutors dropped charges on Tuesday against a Mississippi man accused of sending ricin-laced letters to President Barack Obama, a U.S. senator and a state judge, according to court documents.

The surprise decision came hours after Paul Kevin Curtis was released from a Mississippi jail on bond.

Prosecutors said the "ongoing investigation has revealed new information," but provided no additional details, according to the court order dismissing the charges.

Curtis told reporters he respected Obama. "I would never do anything to pose a threat to him or any other U.S. official," he said. "I love this country."

He said he had no idea what ricin was. "I thought they said 'rice,' I told them I don't eat rice," he said.

Curtis, who is 45 and known in Mississippi as an Elvis impersonator, had been released from jail on bond earlier on Tuesday after a judge indefinitely postponed a court hearing on his detention. The case was later dismissed "without prejudice," meaning the charges could be potentially reinstated if warranted.

Later on Tuesday federal law enforcement officials searched the house of a second Mississippi man, Everett Dutschke, Lee County Sheriff Jim Johnson told Reuters.

It was not clear if the search was related to the ricin case.

A representative for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Oxford, Mississippi, did not return calls for comment.

Dutschke is "cooperating fully" with the FBI, his attorney Lori Nail Basham told the Northeastern Mississippi Daily Journal. Dutschke has not been charged in the ricin case, she said.

Basham said Dutschke and Curtis were acquaintances and believed the two men had known each other for several years.

Deborah Madden, an FBI spokeswoman in Jackson, Mississippi, declined to comment. Phone calls to a number listed for Dutschke and his attorney went unanswered.

In 2007, Dutschke ran unsuccessfully as a Republican candidate against Stephen Holland, an incumbent Democratic state representative from the Tupelo area. Holland's mother, Sadie, is the judge to whom one of the ricin-tainted letters was mailed this month.

During the state campaign Dutschke produced a video titled "The Aliens are Coming," attacking his opponent for being soft on immigration, which stated that Holland was a "friend" of the Sept. 11 hijackers.

LAWYER SAYS CURTIS WAS FRAMED

Christi McCoy, Curtis's attorney, told CNN she believed her client had been framed.

"I do believe that someone who was familiar and is familiar with Kevin just simply took his personal information and did this to him," McCoy told CNN. "It is absolutely horrific that someone would do this."

Curtis was arrested on April 17 at his home in Corinth, Mississippi. He was charged with mailing letters to Obama, Republican U.S. Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi and Sadie Holland containing a substance that preliminarily tested positive for ricin, a highly lethal poison made from castor beans.

The letters were intercepted by authorities before they reached their destinations. The poison scare put Washington on edge during the same week the Boston Marathon bombing occurred.

Over the weekend, investigators searched Curtis's home, his vehicle and his ex-wife's home, but failed to find any incriminating evidence, McCoy told the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal.

In a statement last week, Curtis's family said they had not been shown any evidence of the charges against him. They said he suffers from a long history of mental illness.

Typewritten on yellow paper, the three letters contained the same eight-line message, according to an affidavit from the FBI and the Secret Service filed in court.

"Maybe I have your attention now / Even if that means someone must die," the letters read in part, according to the affidavit. The letters ended: "I am KC and I approve this message."

The initials "KC" led law enforcement officials to ask Wicker's staff if they were aware of any constituents with those initials, and the focus of the investigation then turned to Curtis, the affidavit said.

Also on Tuesday, a Pentagon spy agency said tests found no suspicious letters after an alert during a screening of incoming mail at a military base in Washington, D.C.

Earlier on Tuesday, the Defense Intelligence Agency had said security personnel detected a potentially harmful substance during routine screening of incoming mail at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling in Washington, and initial tests indicated the presence of "possible biological toxins."

We are paying these people millions of dollars to protect us (and the president, too)... and THIS is the best they can do?

Damn pitiful.

~*~



Today on WOLI (Live at Five!), we will be continuing the discussion I started yesterday, which initially began with THIS SCARY ARTICLE (warnings galore) at the always-horrendous, anti-feminist website A Voice For Men. Here is the money quote:

While we’re on the subject of female-perpetuated sexual abuse, most surveys that ask college age women about the sexual abuse they perpetrate find a shocking levels of female-perpetrated sexual abuse. Other surveys find that men who perpetuate sexual abuse are also sexually abused, suggesting a cycle of sexual abuse on college campuses. Perhaps rather than being victims of an indifferent system these silent female rape victims–who are part of a culture of cyclical sexual abuse–fail to come forward to the authorities about their abuse because it would mean admitting that they also are rapists?

Really. It says that. Not making it up.

And it's by ... (ta dahhh!) Typhon Blue, aka Asha James, whom I have mentioned on this blog before (here and here). I am still amazed that a woman who seems to have such open contempt for circumcised men (even once calling their sexuality "crippled"--which is just reprehensible) has somehow ascended the throne as the major female Men's Rights Advocate. (Then again, when you can write a paragraph like the one above, it would seem that MRA-blogging is yours for the taking.) She now blogs at Genderratic, as well as The Good Men's Project (considerably lowering my opinion of the place--no link for you) and of course, the aforementioned A Voice For Men, wherein it seems (considering the name of the blog), that she has been promoted to the status of honorary male. I'm sure that makes her ecstatic. It is not surprising I was once certain she had to be a man... because truthfully, I don't even know any fundamentalist conservative women who suck up to men half as much as she does.

Her views over the years that I have followed her, have not changed in the least, except to become even more conservative and male-identified, if that is possible. Asha's already-advanced Queen Bee Syndrome has flourished and grown by leaps and bounds. She is running the joint, folks. You can just FEEL the preening, all the way through the computer screen.

Here are some of my favorite greatest hits from Asha, from bygone days.

Asha's dating advice:

Men, grow a pair and stop approaching western women entirely. Don’t even bother. It’s what they (obviously) want and the best you’re likely to get from the experience is a night of very bad sex and if you’re really unlucky either a rape accusation or a bill for child support or if you’re really, really unlucky, she’ll rape you herself and then accuse you of rape and/or sue for child support.

As I said, you can't make it up.

Asha has an epiphany:

There’s so much concern for men manipulating women into having sex with them yet there seems to be very little for women manipulating men into long term relationships. (This doesn’t mean I concede the whole ‘women want more long term relationships then men’. In fact I think this is because women tend to go after men who have the most to loose [sic] from marriage and these men are reluctant to get married because… well… they have a lot to loose.[sic])

There’s even a whole vocabulary of shame for men who don’t want to be manipulated in said way.

I wonder what it would be like to live in a world where there’s a whole vocabulary of shaming tactics for manipulating women into doing what men want them to do.

Asha lives is Canada, so maybe she has never heard the words whore, slut, cunt, floozy, strumpet, loose-woman, trollop, harlot, streetwalker, bitch, tramp, nympho, hussy, ho, skank, hooker, pig, harpy, etc etc etc... but I somehow doubt it. (Or are they incredibly moral in Canada? I know they don't own any guns!)

Apparently, she thinks all of these insults come from other women, instead of men trying to control the behavior of women. But hey, check this:

I asked a male friend how many women he’s been with that made an effort to please him physically and he said, out of about 20, he’s been with 2 women that made the effort.

Wow, what bitches!

And in case you aren't sorry enough for the guys:

I read an article about a survey that found men actually become depressed looking at extremely hot models and actresses.

Because they know they can’t have them.

Poor fellas! Such oppression! (((weeps)))

And it just gets better! The Men's Rights Reddit (I DO have limits, and will not link to a sewer) is filled with Bizarro World comments exactly like this. And Asha holds forth as the Queen (Bee) of Men's Rights. So if you wanna go hang out there, you've been warned.

We will be rejoining the rape topic on the air today, so stay tuned.

~*~

EDIT 4/27/13: I have been informed that Typhon Blue/Asha James is no longer writing for The Good Men Project, so please accept my copious apologies (and there is the link to TGMP I did not provide above). Thanks.

EDIT 12/2013: Typhon Blue/Asha James is also known as Alison Tieman, the name she prefers as of late 2013. (Tag has been changed.)

The problem with the Men's Rights movement, continued

A hysterical, silly young feminist at a University of Toronto demonstration was caught on video, shrieking that men's rights guys are "fucking scum" and so on. The prominent Men's Rights blog A Voice For Men has identified her by name, and has commenced harassing her to the point that she has already shut down her Twitter account.

There are 322 comments (as of this writing) applauding the stalking and harassment of this very silly, thoroughly unlucky girl. They are proud of their terrorism and exhorting their readers to go even further.

This kind of thing is why the Southern Poverty Law Center called the Men's Rights Movement (MRM) "a hate movement"--the deliberate and vicious targeting and threatening of feminists who annoy them in some specific (and usually silly) fashion.

Which brings me to another point: As in the whole Rebecca Watson/ELEVATORGATE foofaraw (and that threatens a monster-sized digression all by itself; here is a brief synopsis of the event), these incidents always seem to involve young, thin, attractive women. What's up with that? Are ugly, old or fat women/feminists just not as much fun to harass and rail against? Why not?

It really is rather striking, once you notice it.

For example, on page one of the popular A Voice For Men blog (whom I have criticized here for trashing older, unattractive women, simply for existing) there is a "Featured Offenders" category, of "women bigots" who have said sundry man-hating stuff. Notice every single one of these offenders is very attractive, white, young, and usually blonde. Hm.

Is man-hating somehow more egregious and criminal when coming from young, good-looking gals? I guess so.

The hysterical young woman from Toronto is, you guessed it, quite lovely. Other hysterical girls in the video, not nearly as attractive, did not even get noticed. Somehow, this woman is the one that rates their ire.

I find this a trifle obvious... embarrassingly so. Are they aware of their bias? Are they aware that women are aware of it, and therefore do not take their ire seriously since it seems to be targeting only those gals that make them hot? The ones they especially WANT to behave?

For instance, my own criticism of AVFM did not even rate a reply. (I assume it's because I admitted to being post-menopausal; I have long noticed that criticisms of ageism are not taken seriously by the MRM.) Meanwhile, other critical feminists rate all kinds of extended attention. For instance, they are STILL obsessed with every single thing the aforementioned Rebecca Watson does, while the fat girls remain ignored. (Just like in every other aspect of life.) [1]

NOTE: If you want your movement and criticism of man-hating to be taken seriously, stop focusing only on those criticisms from poster gals you find sexy, okay?

Further, check out the comments in the thread about the hysterical young woman... it only takes TWO (count em, TWO) comments, before they are trashing Marxism and the entire left. Amazing, huh? It is a recurrent theme. I am not sure how Marxism made the young lady crazy and man-hating, but the commies MUST have had something to do with it. [2]

THIS, once again, is why Men's Rights is increasingly regarded as a hate movement, which incidentally, is what the young woman in question was getting so hysterical about: A speech by Men's Rights advocate Warren Farrell. [3] On AVFM, they have written:

[young woman's name] apparently had a twitter account (which comes up on a Google of her name), which has now been shut down. But there appear to be traces of her in multiple net locations. This should be quite enough for our rainbow coalition of agents to do their work.

And we will continue to do ours to bring all of this to the light of public attention, including her listing on Register-her.com.[4]

Doesn't that sound like a gang of men going after one woman? What "work" do they refer to, exactly? (I like how they leave it to your imagination.)

The author of this hit-piece, Paul Elam, once wrote (in a comment addressed to a feminist): "I find you so pernicious and repugnant that the idea of fucking your shit up gives me an erection." [5] (Warren Farrell hasn't said anything that bad, has he?) As I wrote in my first post on AVFM, they believe that all feminists are "termites"--with no exceptions.

My question: Do they think this nasty, bully-behavior is helping men in any way? Really? How?!? Believe me, it doesn't. Even though I am a mere termite, I really would like the positive aspects of this movement to succeed, for many reasons. I do worry about the emotional lives of modern men and boys. I am more worried this week than I have been in a long time.

Which leads me to another crucial point: Do you realize the HARM that this piece will cause, during a week like this? In case you haven't heard: A marginalized man, cut off from mainstream society, had a very violent meltdown and engaged in mass murder... and as a result, all quiet, marginalized men will be looked at with heightened suspicion. YOU ARE MAKING THIS WORSE. YOU ARE PUTTING CERTAIN MEN AT RISK, approving anti-social, stalking behavior and telling them it is good to engage in--actually giving outsiders who want to belong, the cool label of "Rainbow coalition of agents" and calling stalking "work" instead of what it is: stalking.

Let me make it clear: Men will be dragged into interrogation rooms over this. YOU ARE WRONG TO ENCOURAGE THIS SHIT!

Please cease and desist this kind of behavior, gentlemen. This is not men's "rights"--this is about your harassment of an attractive girl who grabbed your attention in a video. (Why her and not the others?) This is about getting even, this is not about asserting rights.

And if you do not cease and desist, please understand that you ARE a hate movement. This is no different than tracking abortion doctors to their homes and taking photographs of their families! This is what a hate movement does.

~*~



[1] One sensible and well-founded complaint from the Men's Movement is that women will not ask men for dates or "approach" men. However, this doesn't refer to fat girls; I was informed by one Men's Rights Advocate that fat girls are the frequent exceptions to this rule, since they often DO approach men... in fact, in many social settings, asking men for dates is considered "fat girl behavior" and even more stigmatized than ever, for this reason. (Who knew?)

In short, they DO NOT want to date the fat girls, so these fat girls' repeated "approaches" don't count... stop bringing them up! (Stop talking about fat girls, goddammit!) They are not talking about you, fat girl, they are talking about this hysterical, pretty, thin girl from Toronto, whom they want to make behave.

Her misbehavior BOTHERS THEM A LOT... yours and mine? Not so much.

[2] The increasing right-wing drift of the MRM is also plenty disturbing, and mostly unacknowledged by its leaders. Although it is notable that many are atheists and active in the atheist movement, which I find interesting.

As a result, there is a growing rift in the atheism/skeptic community, known as "Atheism Plus"--which would be the progressive atheists (i.e. atheism PLUS other social issues). Atheism "by itself" would be the standard old-school, white men's/Richard Dawkins variety.

Needless to say, the MRM is not fond of Atheism Plus, and they largely consider it a dangerous feminist/lefty/queer ideological incursion into the sacred atheist territory of Rationalism and Reason. (You know, the kind of 'Reason' that goes after flakey feminists in Toronto who shriek at demonstrations and are unlucky enough to be pretty and thus rate extended video coverage.)

[3] I exchanged very nice correspondence with Warren Farrell back when I was about 15 years old, after having seen him on the Phil Donahue Show. He was very kind, friendly, positive and encouraging of my feminism. I kept the letter for a long time and thumb-tacked it to my bulletin board, right alongside David Cassidy and Iggy Pop, which is why I remember it. (This would have been 1972 or 73.) Therefore, I have nothing against Farrell. In fact, I left a comment on YouTube, agreeing that "quote-mining" is a negative tactic and needs to end. In that case, I hope these terribly fair-minded Men's Rights fellas will stop quote-mining Andrea Dworkin, too.

Can we make a deal on that?

[4] Register-Her started as a website naming women who make false rape/domestic violence allegations. Apparently, it has expanded to include any women who offend the MRM.

[5] Speaking of quote-mining, I can see why Paul Elam wouldn't be too fond of it.

~*~

EDIT: A Voice for Men has highlighted another shrieking, silly girl at the anti-Warren Farrell rally, so I stand corrected. This one is also named and targeted in the same way as the first silly, shrieking girl:

Additionally, over the next two days, she will be listed on register-her.com as a known bigot, and her image and name will find a place on our display of featured offenders.

And by the way, did I mention? She is also quite beautiful.

I'm sure it's only a coincidence.

Your latest Progressive Blogdonia Brawl

At left: The Five of Wands (strife) from the Rider-Waite tarot deck.









In this corner, we have The Good Men's Project, a 'men's blog' that is not exactly a Men's Rights blog, but is not exactly NOT a Men's Rights blog. Some feminists blogged there... or used to. (Getting ahead of myself.) Last year around this time, there was a notable Twitter squabble among one of the male writers and several well-known feminists, which made the rounds. As a result, from that point onward, GMP was pointedly not known as a feminist blog, even though they did publish the work of feminists and addressed feminist ideas.

Recently, GMP published two very disturbing posts. The first was titled Nice guys commit rape too (really?) by Alyssa Royse, and the second was titled I’d Rather Risk Rape Than Quit Partying by an anonymous male author. The last piece came with a caveat:

Editor’s note: This is a difficult article to read, and to publish. It is a frank, open confession about a certain commonly-accepted form of rape culture, and readers with rape triggers should probably avoid reading it. We at the Good Men Project do not endorse or support the author’s worldview, but it does speak to a very common experience that is often taken for granted and rarely talked about, except in vague and theoretical terms. We thank the author for being willing to speak openly about it, and share his struggle with his own experiences, though we want to make very clear that we do not agree with his conclusions.

And with that, everyone was off to the races.

GMP also offered some follow-up to the hoopla: Giving a Rapist a Public Platform. Alyssa Royse commented further on Facebook about the foofaraw (you knew I would use that word, didn't you?) and was duly quoted on the Yes Means Yes blog. My favorite feminist blogger at GMP (Ozy Frantz) has since departed in disgusted.

The brawl continues. Jill Filipovic at Feministe weighed in, thusly:

The Good Men Project has really stepped in some shit here, with the initial “My friend is a rapist but he’s a good guy because the girl he raped was kind of a slut sending him mixed messages” post by Alyssa Royse. They knew they stepped in shit. Instead of trying to clean it up, they rolled around in it. They doubled down with the follow-up anonymous piece by an admitted rapist with no plans of stopping, and the follow-up to that of the GMP justifying its decision to post the rapists’ piece and the ensuing MRA-fest in the comments.

And yes, I am feeding into it. I seriously considered ignoring it until I saw how many pageviews they get (and I suspect, by the way, that their writers and editors are paid by the pageview, incentivizing this kind of bullshit). Some of their writers and editors are currently complaining that I am “bullying” them and trying to take them down and destroy them. If only I had that kind of power! Just for the record, they get like 10 times the traffic Feministe does. We may have more credibility in the feminist blogosphere because they’ve chosen to repeatedly torch theirs, but we are not the Goliath here. They have an audience of men who think that the GMP is a marginally feminist, progressive site.

A major aspect of this problem is the echo chamber that develops on successful, contemporary 'big blogs'...which seems to happen inevitably, regardless of the particular blog-focus. Christian blogs do not allow atheist input, or at least greet the atheists with condescension and censorship. Atheist blogs belittle and insult the Christians. There is no dialogue. Feminist blogs prize agreement and empathy, banning the Men's Rights Advocates in short order; debate is hardly possible, or even desired. Feminists who dare to comment on Men's Rights Blogs (raises a bloody hand in witness) can get called stupid hags and bitches, and summarily driven off. There is no dialogue.

GMP tried to have the dialogue. They tried to bring the various schools-of-thought together, and it got dicey. In the end, we see which side has prevailed, but I doubt this situation would have happened if they were not trying to have it both (all) ways. Then again, I understand why they wanted the big numbers, the huge readership; this is the way one establishes oneself as a Major Blog to be Reckoned With. Undoubtedly, internet-stardom beckoned, and they saw pundit-gigs for themselves at MSNBC, dancing in their heads.

Too much, too soon.

Some are calling for a boycott of the site (there goes MSNBC!)... others are seriously deconstructing the pieces in question. From The Belle Jar, come these astute observations about the anonymous post:

I want to be thoughtful about this. I know that I should be. I should say that this man clearly has addiction issues and needs help. I should offer him my support, because he is also a rape victim. I should be kind, forgiving, generous. But I can’t. I can’t do any of those things to someone who is an unapologetic rapist, someone who is clear on the fact that he will rape again. Someone who views rape as a “trade-off” for having a good time.

Rape is not something inevitable that happens because you’re partying too hard, because you drink to excess, or because you’re having too much fun. Rape is a choice that this man makes. This man knows that his drinking and partying will lead to having sex with a partner who cannot consent, and yet continues to do so. This man is an unapologetic rapist.

And that is just plain ugly. There is no getting around it. But GMP continues to try to do just that, in decidedly unpleasant ways. The head-perps at GMP appear patently unable to learn from this debacle.

In addition, they do not seem to want to consider the long-term ramifications of their musings, as anti-violence blogger Roger Canaff sternly warned:

I’m sorry, but the issues at work here are far less complicated than you are attempting to make them. And forgive me, but when you attempt to make them more complicated you are putting more women (and some men) in danger. That’s right- that’s my contention. What you’re doing here is creating an elaborate cocktail party conversation with many willing participants about a highly misunderstood and controversial issue. But instead of clearing the air, you’re darkening it. In so doing, you are in fact being an apologist for the relatively few but highly prolific rapists out there who depend on a well-intended but foolish obfuscation of their crystal-clear intent. Please refrain.

~*~

At the same time, it's worth asking: how can we have exciting big blogs that do not turn into boring, repetitive echo chambers? Eventually, they always drive off the people who disagree, and then paint themselves into just this kind of ideological corner... or end up printing something extreme, offensive, and/or ridiculous that becomes known as just A STUNT. (I am thinking also of PZ Myers' deliberate desecration of the Eucharist, and his proud "I'm a bad, bad boy!" post about it, which sounded borderline-deranged.) Were these posts intended simply to get attention and shock, in the same way? LOOK AT US, WE ARE THE BRAVE FRINGE! Punk rock's been done, yall. (Even the Marquis de Sade desecrated the host already, and you might be able to imagine the creative ways he thought up, to do that.) It's all been done already, and lots better.

I keep wondering if these stunts are due to the siphoning-off of blog hits; the fact that blogs might be winding down in importance due to the rise of social media. As I have written before, people want comfy social media, or BIG blogs with lots of high-profile, superstar bloggers, brainstorming and accompanying hoopla. The GMP is possibly now collapsing under this weight. Subtle ideas and thoughtful opinions about social issues and collective change, are pretty boring in these days of Fox News and school-shootings. Those of us toiling in the trenches are not the big story.

And that's too bad, isn't it? Since I always thought we were.

My problem with "Men's Rights Advocates"

I try to read the Men's Rights Activists... I really do. I try to see their point of view. I have spent hours arguing with the ones who are willing to argue.

And... I... well, I hardly know what to say. Because I usually can't get past the first paragraphs of what the MRAs write. I can't even get to the heart of their arguments, assuming they have any.

For example, take this blog post from earlier this year (recently emailed to me), titled I am Schrodinger's Rapist. This piece was based on a popular, widely-circulated feminist essay titled Schrodinger's Rapist, which was about women's fear of strange men. And just like in hip-hop, a witty "reply post" was inevitably required.

Although I had read the original, I had never read the "reply"--which is why my correspondent just HAD to email it to me. It is definitive!--he promised.

Really? Oh, dear God.

This is my ongoing dilemma with the men intent on improving what we here at DEAD AIR call, The Male Dilemma. I can't read beyond the sarcastic intro-paragraphs of their blog posts.

From the above link:

Hello, average looking, aging, perimenopausal female hipster. Yes, you with the horn rim glasses.

Translation: She's old, and therefore unattractive.

Ageism is a given with many of the MRAs, of course. I've been insulted with "You're old!" more times than I can count. Now, just why this is supposed to be automatically bad is never explained in depth. It just IS, grandma! (When I fully admit that I am old, it means they do not have to reply to me, since I cease to exist.)

An old and/or unattractive woman is not worth taking seriously. She is dowdy, and thus unimportant. She has mousy glasses.

Not that men only judge women by their appearance, you understand! In MRA-universe, this is a SEXIST thing to say; you are a man-hater if you suggest that! Therefore the MRAs can still attack women's appearance with impunity, while trashing you as a man-hater for suggesting they shouldn't do it. Good work if you can get it.

What's wrong with being an average-looking, aging, perimenopausal (us awful post-menopausal women are not even important enough to address AT ALL) hipster? Is it supposed to be self-evident that such a person is simply bad, just from the description? We certainly need LOTS MORE of them here in upstate South Carolina/Bob Jones University-land!

Wait, I think this means the writer of this piece comes from a cool place on the coasts with lots of these people. But don't you DARE call him privileged, you anti-male feminist, you!

Yes those frames which were chic-retro back in the 90′s

OH MY GOD! An unfashionable woman! How horrible!

But as stated above, no anti-male comments about how men judge women purely on appearances, that is SEXIST AGAINST MEN! Man-hater!

Besides, you aren't fashionable enough to have an opinion.

- yes, you, the one drinking soy-milk latte and clutching a purse-sized single-use can of pepper spray in a white-knuckled grip behind your pant-leg. Yes, hello: I’m Schrodinger’s rapist.

Now soy-milk latte is bad, too? Can I ask why? Is this another self-evident thing on the coasts? (For the record, here in upstate SC, we can hardly find a place around here to buy one!)

Oh I get it: she is too unattractive to be raped, so its funny that she has a can of pepper spray! HAHA!

That MRA humor! Ain't they just a HOOT?!

Now I know you’re neurotic and probably taking mood stabilizing drugs, so you might be a little confused. I’m not an actual rapist–well, I might be–but what I mean to say is, I’m a man, and therefore, only a rapist in potential, since I haven’t – you know, raped anyone – that you know of.

Ah, so she is CRAZY, too! So she is DOUBLY ridiculous... or should I say triple, quadruple? Let's tally it up: old, unattractive, unfashionable, drinking the wrong thing... now she is ON SOME LOONEY MEDS, so that makes her quintuply uncool, doesn't it?

Insult after insult after insult... and look at the kind of insults they are.

If you thought I would read that last part of your paragraph and take it seriously after all the insults (assuming I got that far)... why would you think that? You are too busy assuring me how superior you are. I am not GOOD ENOUGH to read your post, obviously!

And after all, I’m a rather bland looking fellow, even though on the daytime TV you’ve allowed to shape so much of your concept of reality, they always seem to have an average looking actor playing the sexual predator role don’t they? Your fear sells more nail polish, Paxil and granola bars than your confidence does.

Daytime TV? Ah, a dimwitted hausfrau! It is simply assumed that she is home watching the dreaded dumbass DAYTIME TV! Dumb bitch!

But don't you call him a sexist, since it is sexist of you to say that.

And the references to nail polish (superficial old biddy) and Paxil (crazy old biddy) and granola (just plain OLD biddy, and likely a hippie too) finish her off.

If the author included a good point in there about TV-casting, and I think he did, I was too busy noticing the insults to catch it.

Remember, I’m not a real man, I’m a probabilistic man. I’m a cloud of possibilities. So here’s another possibility to consider: I’m a peaceful, loving, compassionate human being, and I’m an adult. And despite being subjected to more than a decade of physical, emotional and sexual abuse as a child, I am now totally repulsed by the prospect of violence and abuse – even your hypothetical, probabilistic speculations of violence and abuse.

Repulsed!

Now, since you have alerted me that I am a ridiculous stereotype not to be taken seriously, and likely a crazy, drugged-up hippie who is drinking THE WRONG THING... why would I ever think this about you?

You have just engaged in ageism, stereotyping, cultural superiority and prejudice... and now you want me to know you are peaceful, loving and compassionate? Are you serious?

Why do you judge women negatively based on their advanced age, what they drink, their uncool glasses, their viewing habits and if they might have depression... and then claim to be a compassionate guy?

Do you understand how funny that is?

Do you understand that I have already stopped reading?

Yes, you, Miss LonelyHearts, you who have declared yourself my humble instructor – and who have given to my kindness to children and animals, and to my donations to charity, your approval.

First though, what part of appointing yourself my instructor and judge lead to you also declare yourself humble? What combination of diazapam, seraquel, lorazapam, trazadone and the four Grey Goose martinis you had at lunch led you to imagine your approval or your disapproval was of even slight interest to anyone?

More ableist insults of people who use meds... and by now, I think it's plenty obvious this author is in Canada, since nobody in the USA can afford all of that unless they live on Park Avenue.

But really, this is the kind of nastiness one continually reads on MRA websites. This particular writer recently called all feminists "termites" (and he specified he meant ALL OF US--no exceptions!) on his radio broadcast, and I had actually been listening with interest to some of his economic points (about unemployment) up to that point.

But hey, TERMITES? Really? That was that. Click, off went the broadcast. I guess I never will know the rest of his ideas. Just like I will never read the rest of his post.

I don't think postmenopausal southern termites (that can't find a decent soy-latte anywhere) are his intended audience, anyway.

I do worry about the folks who are, though.