Time and again, feminists have pointed out, quite clearly, that a woman who has imbibed any alcohol at all is incapable of providing consent to sexual activities. The laws which have been crafted in recent years reflect this and verify that women are, in fact, unable to make decisions under the influence of even the slightest amount of alcohol.
In fact, not only are women incapable of making decisions once they’re drunk, their capacity to even decide whether to be drunk or not in the first place is completely lacking! Indeed, were a woman to have so much as a man ask her if she’d like a drink, or offer to buy one for her, she’s socially obligated with such force that she’s absolutely required, and nearly forced at gunpoint, to consume that alcohol in the first place.
Men, on the other hand, are quite capable of retaining any and all decision making prowess while drunk, as alcohol uniquely affects women. This can be seen quite clearly in how the laws operate:
If a woman is drunk but a man is not, then she is incapable of providing consent, but he is fully able to provide consent.
If a male is drunk, but a female is not, then the male is able to provide consent without issue. In fact, if the male is so drunk that he has passed out unconscious from imbibing too much alcohol, that’s alright, even unconscious the male has enough mental capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, thereby making it impossible to rape a man while unconscious.
This is how it’s fully possible for both a male and female to be drunk, yet for the female to not be able to provide consent, yet it is possible for the male to provide consent.
With this in mind, it’s quite clear that women are simply not responsible for their actions while intoxicated. In fact, even the mere choice of becoming intoxicated in the first place is out of their hands entirely, and as such, the fact that we have the audacity to try to enforce responsibility on women in other areas while drunk is proof of misogyny!
Women are sometimes actually considered for being the designated driver, despite that they have absolutely zero capacity to choose whether they drink or not. Why, a woman can even be charged with drunk driving, when it’s clearly not her fault that she was drunk in the first place! Why would we ever even dare to consider filing charges against her? It’s not like it was her fault that several people died from her reckless driving. After all, she was drunk at the time, so it’s not like she was responsible for her actions. Being able to consent to driving while drunk is an impossibility, so really, it should be the car manufacturer’s fault.
To help with this problem we should enforce that all car manufacturers install breathalyzers into their cars that must be blown into before the car will start. After all, in the current design, the car is providing consent to be driven whether a woman’s drunk or not, and the woman is incapable of providing this same level of consent, so the onus is upon the car itself to prevent her from driving.
Of course, this doesn’t fix the problem that the woman may still have been forced into drinking in the first place by asking her if she’d like a drink. Even sober, feminists and the legal system are quite adamant that no woman has the mental capacity to honestly be able to say “no” to a drink, nor to consider the implications of what she may do while intoxicated.
In order to better protect women from the harms associated with predators who actually try to give women free drinks, it’s in women’s best interests for us to ban women from drinking at all.
Not only should women not be allowed to have alcohol sold to them, but there should be penalties and fines in place for men who even so much as ask a woman if she’d like a drink, and far harsher penalties if anyone actually tries to buy a woman a drink. After all, adult women have even less capacity to make decisions for themselves when it comes to alcohol than underaged children do.
For example, children in France can be expected to drink responsibly as young as 14 years of age, and 14 years of age is also coincidentally the age at which a male is capable of providing consent to have sex with a 34 year old woman, to the point of having to pay child support, despite not being legally able to even hold a job yet.
Yep, it’s pretty obvious that, even as fully grown adults, women are incapable of drinking responsibly, even including the decision to drink at all in the first place, and as such, women should not be allowed even so much as the opportunity to be abused like this.
Of course, it’s also quite clear that, since women can’t make decisions while sober, such as the decision on whether to get drunk or not in the first place, it’s quite unfair that we actually require them to make decisions on much of anything.
Even things like choosing which career field they want to pursue is quite difficult, as women are still pressured into choosing only low-paying jobs, despite positions being held open for them in many fields. Why, paying half their tuition for their education still isn’t good enough, and it’s quite obvious to anyone that women are so socially pressured that they still try to go into things like interior design, or fashion design, despite that there are almost no jobs available and the pay for such is mediocre in most cases.
As such, we must also recognize that this misogyny must be combated as well. As women are under such pressure that they can’t make a decision on their careers on their own, we should honestly start making those decisions for them with proper quotas set up. If a woman tries to go to college, or even attempts to work without a college degree, she should be legally forced to accept a free course in electrical engineering, or particle physics, regardless of her capacity to actually perform that career path adequately, or her desire to pursue such.
It’s been made quite clear that women have no capacity to make decisions for themselves, and despite that positions in management are all about making decisions, we really do need more women in management. As such, we’ll simply have to double the number of management positions out there. Men who go into management will have to make all the decisions, while women will be allowed to play in the plastic ball pool with the slide that will now be mandatory to be installed in all office buildings.
Of course, the fact that women will be making money for doing literally nothing of value is problematic, so we’re going to have to ensure that these positions are enforced legally and their pay subsidized 100% by the government.
As math is hard, and decisions are impossible for women, men will have to bare the full burden of paying any money that doesn’t go towards their alimony or child support payments as taxes to fund the wages for women.
Has anyone else gotten pissed off at how foolish this entire argument is so far? That every single paragraph is an exercise in misogyny and absurdity taken to even greater levels as each new argument is introduced?
Because this is what feminists want for women. This isn’t a better, equal future for women, it’s nonsense and bloody ridiculous. Women are more than capable of making decisions for themselves, and quite able to handle these challenges. If we allow feminism to keep spouting that women are useless, retarded infants with terminal brain damage, this is the path we will eventually see provided.
Own up, accept responsibility for your actions, and claim your true power – the power to decide what YOU want, rather than being told what you want.
Feminism has provided the arguments for this entire rant, and hopefully, in this absurd light, some of us can finally realize just how ridiculous feminism’s claims of women are.
We’re better than that. We’re smarter than that. We’re more responsible and capable than that. Don’t let feminism portray us as less than we are just so they can have more freebies without working for them at the cost of your dignity and self-respect. It’s just not worth it.
A bit about the Author:
She is a writer, a video game writer, an animator, transgendered, Lithuanian, female, bisexual, and, interestingly enough, legally blind without her glasses. And none of that matters. What matters is she’s passionate about men’s and others’ human rights.
9 thoughts on “Drinking should be illegal for women, right?”
Well, told you so. It may only be in England for now, but that won’t last long.
Actually I think feminism is good for women, me I dont like feminism but women cant really stand up for themselves or fight against men so feminism does it for them. Also it helps men not get into pointless marriages since the divorce rate is so high and men are not really pursuing high paying careers it helps us live a simple life as well. Where would women be without feminism to be honest probably nowhere. Yes feminism is bad for men and men have to deal with all these women hating us and calling us predestined rapost just because we are men but women need feminism without they would still have no vote or be able to own a house.
Aging in women should also be illegal along with the possible accompanying effect of “maturity”. Botox and ponies for everyone! 🙂
While there may be international examples, I am not sure what Australian law you believe suggests that intoxicated men are considered capable under the law to provide consent while women are not. Certainly, the NSW Crimes Act suggests that “The grounds on which it may be established that a person does not consent to sexual intercourse include: (a) if the person has sexual intercourse while substantially intoxicated by alcohol or any drug”. That’s person, not man or woman.
I’d also be very interested in what legislation or case law you believe suggests that women are not legally at fault for driving while drunk. Or for that matter how “feminists and the legal system are adamant that no woman has the mental capacity to honestly be able to say ‘no’ to a drink”.
The age of consent in France is 15, not 14 as you suggested, while the age at which someone can be sold alcohol is 18. A 34 year old woman sleeping with a 14 year old could be charged with a crime under French law.
More generally, you haven’t provided evidence for your thesis that feminism suggests that women are incapable of making decisions or being responsible for their actions (while I can cherry pick examples of feminists who have that view, I can find countless others who do not). Cornerstones of feminism have been campaigns for the right to work, and vote, and make decisions about their lives and bodies.
This kind of article puts the MRM at risk by polluting a very legitimate message – that in many ways men are being let down by society, governments, and the legal system – by solely focusing on an anti-feminism focus which is poorly argued.
Men and women are better and smarter than that – you should write like it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Gemma. Thanks for commenting.
I am not the author but I do have a few things to say in response & I will intersperse these with selected sections from your comment.
“I am not sure what Australian law you believe suggests that intoxicated men are considered capable under the law to provide consent while women are not.”
“I’d also be very interested in what legislation or case law you believe suggests that women are not legally at fault for driving while drunk.”
I feel that you have missed the main thrust of this article. Firstly, this is satire, not sure if you got that or not. As the final couple of paragraphs indicate, the author does not seriously hold the views that are expressed therein.
Secondly, the author is not describing the current state of the law but is instead taking common feminist rhetoric about rape & intoxication &, through satire, is extending them to their logical conclusion, thus showing how insulting & misogynistic they truly are. Nobody is claiming that the legislation is currently setup that way.
“The age of consent in France is 15, not 14 as you suggested, while the age at which someone can be sold alcohol is 18.”
Actually, according to the French Public Health Code, France has no official drinking age & it was to this that the article was referring, not the age for sexual consent (see next point for details). However, the sentence is slightly ambiguous so I can see why you may have thought that she was referring to the age of sexual consent in France.
“A 34 year old woman sleeping with a 14 year old could be charged with a crime under French law.”
I believe that this was referring to this case: http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-governance-feminism/legally-obscene/
The author was not referring to French law on statutory rape & child support, but to US law & the many cases in the US where male victims of statutory rape have been ordered to pay child support. As mentioned above though, the sentence is written in such a way as to be ambiguous so I understand your confusion.
“More generally, you haven’t provided evidence for your thesis that feminism suggests that women are incapable of making decisions or being responsible for their actions (while I can cherry pick examples of feminists who have that view, I can find countless others who do not). ”
You won’t get feminists actually flat-out saying that but the implications of what they advocate necessarily require that assumption. All this article does is extend those sentiments into the absurd in order to demonstrate how stupid they are.
If, on the other hand, what you’re saying is that the core idea behind big budget “awareness” campaigns like “Don’t be that guy” are not indicative of the opinions of most feminists, then I’m afraid that I just have to plain disagree. If that’s the case then where are the dissenters? Why are they so quiet? I’ve never heard a single feminist say anything negative about that campaign, or any similar one. On the contrary, I’ve seen nothing but widespread support. If most feminists disagreed with this campaign & those like it, then surely someone, somewhere would be yelling & waving their arms about but, nope, not a peep.
The idea behind campaigns like “Don’t be that guy” is what the article is satirising. By no means is anyone saying that having sex with an incapacitated woman (or man) is acceptable, not at all, but what IS being said is that if a man &/or woman have been drinking & then have consensual sex, calling that rape the day after, especially if only the woman gets the option to label it as such, is sexist, insulting, dangerous, & just plain stupid.
Hope this clears a few things up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
TV, I think you might misunderstand satire. Satire is the derision of shortcomings and folly via humour and irony. In order to satirise something, the author must genuinely believe that it is worthy of derision, in which case, it suggests that the author does have the view that feminism has all the shortcomings she mentions. The thing about widely accessible satire – think Clarke and Dawe in Australia – is that everyone is in on the joke and is aware of the shortcomings of politicians and the political system.
You can’t extend “common feminist rhetoric” to its logical conclusion if you haven’t actually proven that this is common feminist rhetoric. Similarly, you can’t make claims about the legal system without actually demonstrating examples of where this occurs. The reality is that all the examples in the piece have cherry picked are international, and fairly unique – the case you referred to (San Luis Obispo Count y v. Nathan J., 1996) is 18 years old! By using them instead of local examples, I think you’re only proving that Australia is a pretty decent place for men to live.
You can’t suggest that campaigns like the Canadian ‘Don’t be that guy’ campaigns are widely supported by feminists without proving it. You know why you’ve never heard any dissenters? Most people who would dissent don’t know it exists (I wasn’t aware of it until a few weeks ago). But there are definitely people who would not agree with that kind of messaging. As a feminist, I think portraying women solely as helpless victims who engage in irresponsible drinking is a highly flawed overall message. I also believe excluding female aggressors, male victims, and LGBT people from the first run of the campaign was an incorrect decision. I think the campaign was improved slightly by remembering gay victims of sexual violence (see: http://osocio.org/images/uploads/Dont_Be_That_Guy_4.jpeg from the second run of the campaign) but ultimately, I think for the messaging strategy to be a good one, it would have focused more on the consent and alcohol issue and less on the gender of the aggressors. If I were running the campaign, it would have been less “don’t be that guy” and more ‘don’t be that person’. That said, I feel that a feminist friend of mine who is a survivor of male on female sexual assault may agree with the gendered nature of the campaign.
I don’t know who you think these all these feminists are that are advocating policies which suggest women are irresponsible and incapable of making decisions, but even if you have some examples, there are others which don’t agree with that view, and are equally influential. On the alcohol and rape issue, quite vocal opinions about how women should do more to protect themselves and drink responsibly came from Slate and Mamamia for example.
In the same way that MRM isn’t a binary of good people and bad people, or antiwomen views or prowomen views, feminism is not one stream of thought. Both movements have many different intersecting sets of values and beliefs, and just as it is unfair of the media to characterise the MRM as women-hating assholes, it is unfair for you to turn feminism into a strawman without considering the scope of its ideas and the people within it.
As I said before, the age for consent is 15, and the legal age at which alcohol can be sold to someone in France is 18 (the author agrees that she was referring to those things in the other reply). This is under Article L3342-1 of the French Public Health Code. While there is no official drinking age, retailers are not allowed to sell to people under the age of 18.
Hi again Gemma,
Thanks again for you reply.
“TV, I think you might misunderstand satire.”
No, no. I can assure you that I understand satire quite well.
“Satire is the derision of shortcomings and folly via humour and irony.”
Yes, that’s an adequate definition for our purposes I believe.
“In order to satirise something, the author must genuinely believe that it is worthy of derision, in which case, it suggests that the author does have the view that feminism has all the shortcomings she mentions.”
That’s correct, she does. At least that is what she has communicated to me. As she is an MHRA, I would be very surprised if she didn’t.
“The thing about widely accessible satire – think Clarke and Dawe in Australia”
Love Clarke & Dawe, awesome show. I also love their other stuff. Those guys are brilliant.
Still, you don’t see people calling for them to post references to the events they satirise, & rightly so. If, on the other hand, they were investigative journalists making the same points but in a serious manner, you would expect them to do so. This is the same standard we have applied to this article.
“…is that everyone is in on the joke and is aware of the shortcomings of politicians and the political system.”
Well I’d have to take issue with your claim that “everyone” has to be in on the joke but, yes, the target audience needs to be in order to appreciate the humour, I’ll agree to that. Likewise, the bulk of the target audience of this article (other MHRAs) ARE well aware of the shortcomings of feminism & would understand the references.
Of course this article is not JUST aimed at MHRAs, to a lesser extent it’s also aimed at average men & women who dislike what Feminism has done to our society & are looking to find out if others feel the same way. In other words, possible future MHRAs. For these people, if they are not familiar with the issue, all they need to be aware of is the base fact that many Feminists have been claiming that rape should be redefined to include situations where a woman has ingested even a moderate amount of alcohol, has sex, & feels bad about it afterwards (even if the man is also just as, or even more, intoxicated). This information is provided to them in the very first paragraph of the article so they needn’t be aware of the wider situation before reading the article & the rest can be induced/deduced using the reasoning outlined in the article itself.
It may be a legitimate gripe to claim that this initial info was not backed up with references but, given the satirical style of the article, I believe that this can be forgiven (as argued above). Perhaps you disagree, as is your prerogative.
“You can’t extend “common feminist rhetoric” to its logical conclusion if you haven’t actually proven that this is common feminist rhetoric.”
Anyone familiar with what is happening internationally knows that there is currently a push on by Feminists to create an “affirmative consent” or “enthusiastic consent” definition of rape, it’s all over the media & the web, & it was felt by our editors that this was more than enough given the article’s style. I agreed with that decision at the time & still do. Perhaps you feel differently & that’s fine by us. We’re not into dictating to people what they must think. Our method is persuasion through fact & logic, not coercion or censorship. We leave that to those that oppose us.
The “Don’t be that Guy” campaign & the push to make women legally incapable of providing consent for sex while intoxicated are components of this wider push for a change in the legal definition of rape. We can quibble over the definition of “common” but it’s certainly common enough that many people have written articles about it in major newspapers, large feminist organisations & groups have launched well funded professional advertising campaigns to promote it, prominent feminist academics, lawyers, & activists have spoken, & acted, strongly in support for it, & dozens, if not hundreds, of feminist websites & bloggers have written in favour of it. There is even now proposed legislation in the US (California Senate Bill 976) that advocates changing to this “Affirmative Consent” standard. I don’t know what your defnition of “common” is but that qualifies in my book.
We could have included references to instances of these, & if it was a serious article whose intent was to prove that it was the case, we would have. However, as I have said, this was satire & primarily intended to give MHRAs a chuckle while still making a point and, as such, does not carry the same burden of proof as would a more conventional article, in our opinion. The intended audience already knows that these changes are being pushed.
“Similarly, you can’t make claims about the legal system without actually demonstrating examples of where this occurs. The reality is that all the examples in the piece have cherry picked are international, and fairly unique – the case you referred to (San Luis Obispo Count y v. Nathan J., 1996) is 18 years old!”
The details of the article make reference to that particular case only because it is the most egregious in that the boy was only 14 & the woman was 34 & she only spent a few years in jail. However there are many other examples of this occurring more recently where the boy is slightly older (yet still a minor) & the woman in her mid to late 20’s, so it’s certainly not unique in any sense of the word. Besides, it’s the fact that US law allows this to occur at all that is the issue being criticised here, not how frequently or recently it’s happened, which is irrelevant while the laws enabling it still stand. The fact that the law can be used to force a male rape victim to pay their female rapist child support is utterly abhorrent & if the sexes reversed, that level of burden would never be placed on a female victim. Far from it.
Even if this was the only example of this ever occurring, which it isn’t, not by a long shot, I don’t see how your argument of it being an old case affects the point being made. While the laws allowing this still stand, you only need a single example in order to legitimately criticise the legal system in which it occurred.
“By using them instead of local examples, I think you’re only proving that Australia is a pretty decent place for men to live.”
Well, for a start, the author of the article is Canadian so it makes sense that she would be speaking from a North American POV, not that it makes much difference in an article like this. Secondly, while I agree that Australia isn’t as bad as the US, & especially Canada, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that Australia is a “pretty decent place for men”. It’s still pretty bad here. On top of the distain that men are treated with by society, men still lack some of the formal legal rights that women enjoy. It’s just not AS bad here as it is in North America…yet.
Feminism is a global movement & is not limited by national borders. What happens in other countries soon ends up coming here. This is why we speak out about issues affecting other countries. Any obstacle we can put in the way of these policies being implemented overseas assists in ensuring that they not only fail over there but also helps to prevent them from coming over here. Often by the time they have a foothold overseas, there is little that can be done to prevent them from occurring in Australia. It is therefore an effective strategy to adopt.
“But there are definitely people who would not agree with that kind of messaging. As a feminist, I think portraying women solely as helpless victims who engage in irresponsible drinking is a highly flawed overall message.”
So what are you saying here? That the silent, inactive Feminists who wield no power or influence whatsoever are the REAL feminists but the vocal, active, Feminists that wield great power & influence, & are having a large deleterious effect on our society, aren’t REAL Feminists at all? If that is the case it’s a pretty fatuous claim. Unless you are wiling to stand up, as a feminist, & call out the stuff you disagree with, you are part of the problem & by continuing to use the label “Feminist” you are giving these people cover, it really does come down to that.
“I don’t know who you think these all these feminists are that are advocating policies which suggest women are irresponsible and incapable of making decisions”
As has been said several times, it necessarily follows from their initial claim. Nobody is claiming that feminists are going around actually saying that women are irresponsible & incapable of making decisions but in order for their claims about rape & alcohol to be legitimate, that is the inescapable implication that necessarily follows &, as I have said above, there are plenty of influential feminists & feminist organisations publicly making exactly this claim. If a majority of feminists disagree with this then they are being awfully quiet about it. Or perhaps they just don’t care enough to be bothered? Either way, they aren’t helping. At all.
“but even if you have some examples, there are others which don’t agree with that view, and are equally influential.”
I disagree. You are probably correct that there are feminists out there that don’t agree, but I’ve been following this issue closely & I am not aware of any major feminist organisation or publication that has spoken out in opposition to this particular issue. It’s possible that a couple may evade my attention but if that stance was in any way comparable in frequency to the standard view, I would have seen at least 1 by now.
“On the alcohol and rape issue, quite vocal opinions about how women should do more to protect themselves and drink responsibly came from Slate and Mamamia for example.”
The evidence you cite here does not relate to this issue but to a separate issue altogether.
It’s simple common sense that women should take precautions to keep themselves safe, just as anyone should & yes, Slate & Mamamia have written in favour of this (on a side note, Mamamia has published at least one article in opposition to this as well. Not a very consistent message). However, the issue in question here is not whether or not you should take steps to keep yourself safe but whether or not they should change the legal definition of rape (of women) to include cases where the woman is intoxicated. It’s not the same issue at all.
The issue in question here is whether or not it should be considered rape if a women engages in sex when intoxicated & both Slate & Mamamia, as well as MANY others, have published articles saying that it should be. As far as I’m aware, no prominent feminist group, web site, or individual, has come out against that position & the one & only public awareness campaign opposing it (i.e. Don’t be that Girl) has come from the MRHM, not feminists.
“In the same way that MRM isn’t a binary of good people and bad people, or antiwomen views or prowomen views, feminism is not one stream of thought. Both movements have many different intersecting sets of values and beliefs, and just as it is unfair of the media to characterise the MRM as women-hating assholes, it is unfair for you to turn feminism into a strawman without considering the scope of its ideas and the people within it.”
The only type of feminism that the MHRM in general take issue with is the type that holds the view that women are, & have historically been, uniquely oppressed & exploited & who are acting to increase the power & privilege of women in our society even further by promoting that belief & using it to obtain cookies for themselves, usually without the associated responsibilities that should go along with it. This is usually encompassed by the term “Patriarchy Theory” & is a blatantly hateful worldview that can only exist if the opposite side of the coin (i.e. that men are, & have historically been, oppressed & exploited also, just in different ways) is suppressed, minimised & denied. I am aware that there are many different types of feminism but as I understand it, almost all subscribe to Patriarchy Theory.
Even so, I realise that not all feminists are hateful misandrists. However, a large proportion of them are (whether they know it or not), & they tend to be in positions of power where they can have a large impact on government policy, legislation & case law in courts. They are also well funded by both the government & by private donors, so the power they have is amplified even further. This is what the MHRM is fighting.
I know that other types of feminism exist but they are all but invisible in the public arena &, as such, are absolutely irrelevant to this discussion.
The only gripe I have with Feminists who believe in true gender equality is that they are, universally, almost completely silent when it comes to calling out the lies & hate that the politically connected & influential feminists come up with & that they claim to disagree with. Unless these other feminists are willing to stand up & say “No, I won’t support what you are doing & I will say so loudly” then they are part of the problem as far as I am concerned & the fact that you refer to yourself using the same label as the hateful feminists simply gives them a veneer of legitimacy. Unfortunately these feminist masses that you allege exist appear to be content to sit back & just ignore the damage that these other feminists are doing in their name. The only time I’ve ever seen a feminist criticise political feminism even mildly, is after it has impacted negatively on them personally (eg. Judith Grossman & in that case the irony was delicious since she actively helped to bring about the situation that took down her son).
When was the last time you saw a feminist say publicly that “Stop violence against women” campaigns are sexist for omitting men (who are far more likely to be the victims of violence by the way)? When was the last time you heard a feminist appear on TV promote a campaign against the routine rape of men in prison & war, without giving primacy to the far less frequent rape of females in those situations? When have you ever heard any prominent feminist use his/her platform to lobby for men’s health to receive equal funding to women’s health? When have you heard a feminist promote the fact that nearly half (& at least 1 in 3) DV victims is male, that in the US, men are raped by women almost as often as women are raped by men (even though it isn’t called rape but “forced to penetrate”) & that more men than women are raped overall, or that the vast majority of the the homeless, & those killed at work, are male, etc, etc. Where was the feminist outrage when Hillary Clinton told an auditorium full of women in El Salvador:
“Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children.”
I certainly didn’t hear any. But maybe it was just drowned out by the deafening applause & raucous cheering from the women in the audience.
My apologies, I am getting snarky now, I shall try to control myself better. The hatred evident in that quote just really pisses me off.
Feminists NEVER talk about these issues, at least not in public. The narrative is clear. No matter what feminist is speaking, women are the primary victims in our society & they are the victims of men. If they even mention men as victims at all they downplay the numbers & dismiss it as a minor &/or rare issue.
I don’t deny that these “good” feminists that you talk of exist but if they really cared about equality at all, they would get together & say or do something about things like this, but all we hear are crickets chirping. Can you explain this?
If these feminists dislike being lumped in with hateful feminists then my advice would be to distance yourself from them as much as possible. The MHRM does exactly this whenever we encounter some nutbar who identifies as an MHRA & starts spouting hateful & truly misogynistic things or advocates violence (look at Peter Nolan for example). We call out their stupidity &/or hatred, we write articles about them detailing why they are wrong, we ostracise them, ban them from our web sites & forums, & make it DAMN clear that they do not speak for the rest of us. Even in the cases where some idiot says something stupid & it slips past us, these people are simply anonymous nobodies out there on their own. They wield no power or influence because no MHRA will follow them. Contrast this with Feminism where the situation is inverted. The hateful, misandric nutbars are in positions of power & leadership while the reasonable people allow them to rule through their inaction & apathy. A more cynical person than myself might even suggest that they remain silent because they enjoy eating the steak so much that they are willing to tolerate the slaughtering of cows necessary to provide it…so long as they don’t have to actually do that slaughtering themselves.
“As I said before, the age for consent is 15, and the legal age at which alcohol can be sold to someone in France is 18 (the author agrees that she was referring to those things in the other reply). This is under Article L3342-1 of the French Public Health Code. While there is no official drinking age, retailers are not allowed to sell to people under the age of 18.”
This is a minor quibble. Whether the author made an error here or is simply being gracious by not pushing the issue is of little consequence. I read it in such a way that it matches the facts but it is ambiguous. However, if she is happy to concede that she should have written 15 rather than 14 then I’m not going to labour the point. It makes no difference whatsoever to the wider argument in any case.
I think that about covers it. I hope this helps you gain a clearer view of what we were trying to accomplish here.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hey Gemma, thanks for bringing up some of these points!
First off, may I cover in advance that, yes, the article was originally intended primarily for an international audience and I provided it to mensrightssydney.com for their use. Some of the references are, indeed, international, ranging from Canada, to the USA, to a few points from Europe and Australia itself.
For the record, I probably should’ve made it more abundantly clear that this was the case, as the implication is suggested that it applies primarily to Australia, rather than being international primarily in origin.
Now, beyond that, this is satire; there are no laws that even suggest that a woman would not be legally at fault for driving while drunk – instead, it’s the logical conclusion of the reasoning which many feminists have used, which states that women can’t be held accountable for their actions while drunk, but that a man can. This line of reasoning only works if you assume that a man is capable of determining their actions and choices while drunk, but that a woman is not. If a woman is incapable of making decisions while drunk, then she can’t be logically held responsible for any actions she takes while drunk, not just those limited to sexual relations. As such, there are no laws that say that a woman is immune from fault for driving while drunk, but following the same line of reasoning that is provided by feminism, there should be.
Next off, you are correct on the matter in regards to France. My fact checking was in error; it was Germany, not France, that has a 14 year age limit on drinking (under parental supervision). France actually has no age limit at all. For the second part of this, there was a case in the United States where a 14 year old boy was raped by his 34 year old female teacher; she was charged with statutory rape, and served several years in prison. As soon as she was released, she sued the boy for child support, so that as soon as he reached age 18, he would have to not only pay child support from that point on, but it would apply retroactively back to when he was 14. The reasoning, was that it was in the best interests of the child, though, to be blunt, the child should have not been under the protection of its’ rapist of a mother in the first place as she was forbidden from being within a certain range from children, so the whole thing was just one big case of SNAFU.
Now, as for the issue of proving that feminists believe that these things should be the case? Of course I can’t; they don’t. That’s the hypocrisy that’s being poked fun at. They don’t think that women should be immune for things like drunk driving, or that women should be forced into career paths they don’t want to be in. The problem is, their exact same line of reasoning has simply been applied universally, which leads to the ridiculous claims of the article. If you believe that there should be more women working in the STEMM fields, then why are you taking courses in gender studies instead of a STEMM field? The fact of the matter is, things like these are essentially insulting women’s choices by stating that it’s not an intelligent, reasoned decision by a woman to avoid a horrible, miserable, dangerous job, but rather it’s that she had her decision made for her.
Again, this isn’t what feminists are saying; it’s not even what a minority of feminists are saying (I don’t believe any of them hold that view, or if they do, they’re in an excessive minority). The point is that it’s what feminists would be saying if they applied their logic universally, and this is where the problem comes in – it’s absolutely absurd when you view it in any other context, and downright insulting if you think about it carefully.
Does this apply to *ALL* of feminism? Again, of course not, there are people who call themselves feminists who hold not a single belief at all that feminism itself proclaims. What it does apply to, however, is the public image of feminism, which holds up key ideals and dogma, such as patriarchy theory, rape culture, the wage gap and so on. Each of these concepts sounds fine at first glance, until you actually stop to think about them with even a shred of critical thought, and then the house of cards collapses under it’s own weight the moment you sit a brick of logic upon it.
As such, this isn’t intended to cherry pick key quotes, but rather to apply universal, internal consistency of the logic of the primary arguments held by feminism as a whole. Sure, we can state that this doesn’t apply to all feminists, but once you remove every single key thing that feminism stands for, really, can you still call that a feminist who has nothing to fight for? If you say “women are already equal”, you’re not really a feminist, as that would be the end of the need for the movement, and as such, we can simply ignore this category of feminist, because they aren’t actually feminists =P
Regardless, in the end, you’re right, the MHRM shouldn’t have to deal with situations like this. I shouldn’t have to write an article like this at all. It’s silly, it’s ridiculous, and it’s blatantly annoying as hell. I can’t even say I enjoyed writing it for the most part, and it would be remiss of me to not state that I would love to be able to not have to point these things out in the first place.
If people didn’t keep trying to harm women (and men, as well) with these ridiculous claims, I wouldn’t have to write about it. If I could make this one statement once, and never have to mention it again, I’d be giddy with glee, even. If it were possible that the bulk of feminism would just stop trying to treat me like a retarded monkey, or at the very least, keep to itself rather than attacking the MHRM, I could rest easy.
Unfortunately, this isn’t the world we live in. Utopia is but a pipe dream, and we’re stuck with reality.
As such, I occasionally have to make anti-feminist articles. I’d much rather just focus solely upon the rights of men and boys, but… well… this article alone netted the site more than an order of magnitude increase in traffic compared to all the articles that simply said what the issues men and boys face are, and what we need to do about them.
Sadly, talking nicely gets you ignored while the other side slanders you constantly and without remorse. Occasionally you have to point out that they’re the one sitting in the mud puddle to even have that much mud to sling. It’s distasteful, but we do what we must, not because we enjoy it, but because we owe it to the men and boys out there who would be ignored otherwise.
If I have to look like a fool in order to help someone else, so be it. It’s a small price to pay. Besides, I’m a writer; I don’t have much of an ego to kill anyway.
LikeLiked by 2 people