Me on Twitter, discussing the Richard Dawkins tweets about rape: Our culture has TERRIBLE ideas about rape. So we should speak about it carefully, clearly, and w/ awareness.
Jerk on Twitter: oh shut up. You completely missed the point with his argument. Jumping the gun feminazi.
#mencallmethings
Really. In answer to the idea that our culture has terrible ideas about rape, so we should speak about it carefully, clearly, and w/ awareness, your response is “shut up, feminazi.”
I’m reminded once again of Lewis’s Law: “Comments on any article about feminism justify feminism.”
Note: The #mencallmethings hashtag does not say #allmencallmethings, or #mostmencallmethings. If you want to learn more about the history of this hashtag and why people started using it, please read But How Do You Know It’s Sexist? The #MenCallMeThings Round-Up and Why Are You In Such A Bad Mood? #MenCallMeThings Responds! on Tiger Beatdown, where the hashtag originated. And please do not start a “but not all men are like that, so the #mencallmethings hashtag is reverse sexism!” argument. That has been addressed, at length, in the comments in the #mencallmethings: “FUCKIN HOE,” “FUCKIN FEMINAZI SLUT” post, as well as elsewhere. Please read Why “Yes, But” Is the Wrong Response to Misogyny if you’re wondering why I will not take kindly that that particular line of conversation.
“missed the point of the argument”?
No, I think you understood it quite well.
Ranking different types of rape is detestable.
I’m twitter illiterate so I feel privileged to be left out of the cesspool.
#ANYmencallme… is too many.
Sigh. Greta, this is why so many atheist and agnostic women remain in the closet. Coming out and dealing with the hurt and fear and possible rejection of loved ones is one HUGE thing…but the kind of abuse that awaits us within the “community” makes the family issues look like a stroll at the local botanical gardens.
We are not going to participate. No rational reason to do so.
Yes, Greta, but.
Yes but.
Yeeeeessss… but!
Yes: But.
Yesbut?
Yes. But.
Yes, but…
Yes! But!
Yes…
…but?
Yes, buuuut.
Yes but yes but yes but!
Yes, but!
Yes? But.
Kind of going for a Stan Freberg-ish vibe here, but if this comment does not see the light of day, nothing of value will have been lost…
Dawkins is the one missing the point.
And “feminazi?” Do people remember where that came from? Is this guy the new role model for skeptics?
http://www.movingasfastasican.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2011/12/rushlimbaugh.jpg
I’m thinking there should be a trigger warning for that link I just posted…gave me the willies…
I thought calling women feminazi’s was hilarious… when I was 15. Now I’d like to smack 15 year old me.
“Feminazi” is like “mangina.” If you use the word in any context other than to mock it for the hurr-de-hurr idiocy that it is, then you aren’t an adult and no opinion you have on pretty much any subject (but especially matters concerning equality and gender politics) needs to be taken seriously.
#8- Absolutely. I maintain an internal list of stopper words and ‘feminazi’ lives squarely atop it. (Slightly above ‘political correctness’ and ‘Democrat party’). Ignoring someone who uses that word is simply lossless compression of information.
If I were a friend of Dawkins, one of the best things I could do for him would be to take away his Twitter password. What weirds me out about his stupid twitter history isn’t as much that he holds the opinions- they’re ignorant and/or foolish, but not shockingly so for an old white guy- but that he thinks. “This. This is the important thing I have to say today, the thing I feel the need to communicate to the world right now.”
Dawkins, I think is merely blindly entrenched in sexism and rape culture – privilege, then. However, I think he also believes in debate and discussion – he just doesn’t recognise that debates and discussions often touch on people’s personal experiences, and that most people aren’t able to dispassionately rationalise those experiences in the was that he is (unusually and unhelpfully) able to. I believe that even Dear Muslima was intended to be a killer argument which would persuade people that they were making mountains out of molehills, rather than merely a silencing tactic (although it was no doubt meant to end the discussion).
He is able to place everything on a scale which might translate well into, for example, legal argument – the severity and aggravating circumstances of a rape are something which might be appropriately considered when sentencing a rapist, but clearly aren’t appropriate if your intention is to construct some sort of scale of rape to judge the response of victims. His response is simply to resort to pedantic and unnecessary categorization, and lacking emotional insight – a familiar problem with his publicly expressed opinions on issues of social justice.
On the other hand, people such as Alex McGonagle simply don’t value discussion, and probably only value debate insomuch as it can be a platform for his heroes to look good.
As Soon as Dawkins starts to look like a chump, then it must be those offering critique who are in the wrong and missing the point. The point, apparently being something so subtle which can only be teased out by contorted argumentation and reinterpretation, wild analogising, and semantic argument, all of which require that the original words and their common meaning are discarded and replaced with something much more mundane and uncontroversial.
Actually, your response to Dawkin’s tweet was one of the more nuanced and respectful ones – you have nerves of steel Greta, and the patience of a determined salmon trying to swim up the Discworld’s rimfall. I get this feeling that many women gain superpowers due to the number of times you have to patiently explain this stuff to us oft clueless SWCMs.
Also, which transport location should I report to for mandatory feminizing (or is it mangining)?
@11: =*-DX
That’s a SLUR, I tell you….SLUR. Misandry!!!111!!!11’s
[Sarcasm tag] : just in case due to the recent influx.
@Donnie #12
Darn, you’ve got me there, how dare I associate regular cluelessness with majority and privilege-conferring attributes! That was tantamount to saying people who have it good are more likely to be ignorant of those who have it bad!
*snip long mansplaining egalitarianism 101 screed*
A Hermit
Him and Todd Atkins…
Well, they’re loud, successful, and have a long reach. I suppose that if all you care about is spreading your message via an unopposed platform, then they are rather good role models.
On the other hand, if one cares about the quality of your message and the character of their audience, then perhaps one would do well not to ape the behaviour and co-opt the language of oppressive, bullying shit-bags.