He's basically saying that internet feminists care more about frivolous internet shit than they do about bad stuff that happens to women in the real world. There's a grain of truth in what he's saying, but I'm sure he'll get dogpiled for the way he said it.

Summary: johnholmes feminism

This happened about five months ago, but I just stumbled on it now.

To be honest, I didn't watch more than the first few seconds, because of the pain of watching Mr. Repzion mug like a kid in a nineties Mentos commercial, but you'll find this talking point repeated all over the manosphere, regarding this horrible crime. Basically it's a variation on Fox News commentators talking about: "All this selective outrage about white cops shooting black men, yet no one cares when black men shoot other black men."

Ex pornstar, now a mom, is the victim of a random crime. Five youths break into a home to rob the place, decide to gang rape the mom in front of her kids because she's hot. By the time the case was discussed publicly, police had arrested three suspects, were expecting to get the other two soon.

So, where, the manosphere wants to know, are the feminists? Why aren't they protesting? The implication seems to be that they're abandoning this woman because she used to be in the adult entertainment industry, but in reality, i can't see where there's anything to protest,. A crime was committed, but there's no effort by the community to cover up the crime, like in Steubenville. No one's blaming the victim because she was drunk or something. The police are taking it seriously. As a matter of fact, the cops I saw discussing it in another video were clearly horrified, and the youths who were apprehended were being charged as adults.

So apparently, the manosphere is calling out feminism on its hypocritical failure to make sure that everyone knows that a woman being gang-raped by five men, in her home, in front of her children, is a bad thing. Because, how else will we know?

I'm inclined to agree with you here, John, but there are two obvious problems with what you just said:

First, Steubenville was not a "feminist" thing. It was an "Anonymous" thing, and the Anon network is famously pro-MRA.

Second, you're begging the question with the statement "No one's blaming the victim because she was drunk or something". The accusation from the manosphere, according to you, is that people ARE blaming the victim - they are blaming her because she was a sex-worker. This accusation may be unfounded, but it has been made; you just said so yourself!

>>.First, Steubenville was not a "feminist" thing. It was an "Anonymous" thing, and the Anon network is famously pro-MRA.

Oh Homer, Homer, what am I going to do with you? The point is that there was a reason to get involved in Stuebenville. Who it actually was that got involved is irrelevant, but I doubt that you couldn't find a feminist during the controversy.


Second, you're begging the question with the statement "No one's blaming the victim because she was drunk or something". The accusation from the manosphere, according to you, is that people ARE blaming the victim - they are blaming her because she was a sex-worker. This accusation may be unfounded, but it has been made; you just said so yourself!

Thank you, Homer Johnson, for that wonderful example of authentic electronic frontier gibberish. I'm partiicularly glad that these lovely children were present to hear this.

There's no contradiction, and it's off the point.

>> Oh Homer, Homer, what am I going to do with you? The point is that there was a reason to get involved in Stuebenville

Whether there was a reason to get involved is a separate issue from who it was that got involved, and who it was that got involved is extremely relevant; perhaps, given the current discussion, the MOST relevant piece of information we can get! Again, the Steubenville rape gang was exposed, not by your hypothetical feminists, but by the Anonymous network - a seething cauldron of anti-feminist MRA activity, and the very same group which posted all those Boxxy rape fics you hated. Using OpRollRedRoll as an example of feminists having their priorities straight, makes about as much sense as citing the Tea Party as an example of Democrats supporting limited government, or claiming that Satanists giving money to charity is proof of the benevolence of the Catholic church. *Whom* is doing the what is clearly a critical piece of information.

>> There's no contradiction, and it's off the point.

I didn't say it was a contradiction, I said you were begging the question. A mere two sentences earlier, you summed up what you believe the manosphere's argument to be - "The implication seems to be that they're abandoning this woman because she used to be in the adult entertainment industry". In other words, according to you, the manosphere claims that feminists are blaming the victim. Then, in order to prove the truth of your own contrary position, you say that "no one's blaming the victim" - acting as though a lack of victim-blaming is already an established proposition, rather than the very thing you need to demonstrate!

Manosphere? Oh my sweet Jesus, no.

I don't know the details of this story very well, but it makes sense that there wouldn't specifically be much to do for feminists if the police have taken the attack seriously, apprehended the rapists, and they are being charged appropriately. If something goes wrong with the trial or something, I could certainly see some sort of protest happening, but as it stands, the law isn't failing this woman the way it has done so many other victims. Has she reached out to feminist orgs for counceling or some other type of support and been rejected or something? Feminists can't just interject themselves into her and her family's lives against her wishes. But if she decides to seek help from an org that helps survivors rebuild their lives, uh, chances are those people will be feminists.

There are certainly sex worker exclusive feminists out there. And there are sex workers who are feminists. And they criticize each other on the regular (especially lately, given the recent Amnesty International situation). The monolithic feminist superpower this kid is so mad at is made of straw.

>>Whether there was a reason to get involved is a separate issue from who it was that got involved,

REALLY? YA THINK?

>> and who it was that got involved is extremely relevant;

Maybe, to whatever you're talking about Homer, which is, as always, one of life's great mysteries. What I was talking about is whether there's a reason to get involved. Which, I think we established two minutes ago, is a separate issue. Isn't that sort of the opposite of "extremely relevant".

>> acting as though a lack of victim-blaming is already an established proposition, rather than the very thing you need to demonstrate!

I don't need to demonstrate the lack of something. I'm not aware of any allegations that the victim is being mistreated by the system in any way. It wasn't in any of the blogs I read. It falls to Repzion, Doosh, et al to demonstrate that there's a real reason why activism is called for, other than feminists proving that they're still against rape. I didn't watch the whole video so I could have missed that. It wasn't in the blogs I found. If anyboy finds something please, post it.

>> What I was talking about is whether there's a reason to get involved.

... but you also need to ask yourself, "who is actually getting involved?" You're ignoring critical variables here, Mr Holmes, and unless you deal with these variables, you're never going to have an informed, sophisticated understanding of the issue. The Steubenville rape case was exposed by committed agents of the patriarchy; your viewpoint on the apparent culture war between feminists and MRAs must be able to take this fact into account.

Also, I assumed that she wasn't being criticized for being too drunk at a frat party, because she was in her own home, with her family.

>> I don't need to demonstrate the lack of something.

In this instance, yes, you do. Again, you're begging the question - you are using the as-yet unsubstantiated conclusion you wish to reach ("there has been no victim blaming"), as the premise with which to attack Mr MrRepzion's arguments ("feminists are ignoring Miss Syria's rape because they blame the victim"). You can't prove a negative, of course, but you need to make at least some effort here - you could, for example, pull up the writings of a few respected feminist commentators, and try to show that they harbour no ill-will towards sex-workers, or that they've actually defended gang-raped sex-workers in the past.

>>>The Steubenville rape case was exposed by committed agents of the patriarchy; your viewpoint on the apparent culture war between feminists and MRAs must be able to take this fact into account.

I don't believe in the western patriarchy in the present day. I do believe in the "patriarchal": patriarchal traditions, patriarchal institutions, patriarchal attitudes.

And I don't believe that Anonymous is as monolithic or as static as all that. There are plenty of anons who would qualify as feminist, though they may call themselves "egalitarian" or whatever.

>> And I don't believe that Anonymous is as monolithic or as static as all that.

Of course they're not monolithic, no more than any other group: feminists, conservatives, Muslims, furries, MRAs, you name it! Collectives are never anything more than labels of convenience; in reality, every Anon is a thinking, feeling individual. with his or her own set of beliefs, who participates in the marketplace of ideas in accordance to their own unique personal goals.

It is undoubtedly true, however, that the people who consider themselves a part of Anonymous are generally not warm towards internet feminists, and they are particularly hostile towards the sort of feminists whom Mr Repzion has a problem with. You yourself have been quite critical of Anonymous in the past - about their treatment of Boxxy, their treatment of Anita, their treatment of Amanda Todd. Yet now you seek to claim one of the great triumphs of 'chan-culture, OpRollRedRoll, merely because it would be nice if the sort of people involved in hunting down the Steubenville rape squad were more like Mr Repzion's enemies, than like Mr Repzion himself.

Surely you can see why this might be unreasonable.

So, this woman was raped, and the police immediately moved into action, taking her "claims" (man, I couldn't think of any other way to phrase that, and it still feels really dirty, thanks Rape Culture!) seriously and arresting several of the suspects, while still on the hunt for the others.

And those suspects are presumably going to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for the crime(s) of which they've been accused.

What, exactly, is there TO protest? So far, everything is proceeding as it should be (I mean, obviously her being assaulted wasn't 'how it should be', but you get my drift). She's being treated as a human being and a victim of a horrendous crime, and the systems of authority are attempting to use said authority to catch the people that perpetuated this crime and punish them for it, rather than dismissing it because of her previous sex work background or for some other more nebulous 'because women are liars' or whatever reasoning that so much of the MRA-sphere use as the basis of their ideology.

You don't protest when everything is going right. Arguably, you don't even protest when most things are going right and a few polite suggestions on how the other things could be made to be going right, too, and the people in charge of how things are going correct their course appropriately.

I mean, what are we supposed to be protesting? "Rape is bad"? Of course it is, nobody needs to protest on that point, it's actually pretty well understood, even with that previously mentioned Rape Culture being a thing that exists.

As usual, with most protestations of the evils of feminism, this video is a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Five stars for evil, I guess.

>>You yourself have been quite critical of Anonymous in the past - about their treatment of Boxxy, their treatment of Anita, their treatment of Amanda Todd.

They never mistreated Amanda Todd. What they did, after her death, was butt into the investigation of her extortion in the most club-footed, ham-handed way possible. They located a suspect, and leaked his name publicaly, and apparently, they were wrong, since someone else was arrested.

Boxxy's relationship with 4chan is really quite fascinating. She wasn't stalked in the usual way, She was placed at the center of a 4chan civil war. Without even knowing that it was happening at first, she became the icon, the symbol, and also the weapon, for those who wanted 4chan to drop the relentless tough guy culture. So the other side made her a target, and then it got crazy. Anons are stiill divided about Boxxy. And that's the point, they're divided about EVERYTHING, except maybe Scientology.

You've got anons posting hentai in 4chan, promulgating rape culture, and you've got anons in stuebenville, fighting rape culture. I've been told there are actually two Anonymouses, but I suspect there are more than that.

>>Yup. Hell, there are many valid criticisms to be leveled at most strains of feminism. (Or any other movement, for that matter.) But I suppose if these assholes started being fair & nuanced in their criticisms, then they would have to acknowledge the limits of their criticisms.

One big problem with ideologies on the left and right is the way they deal with friendly criticism. Feminism should disregard the criticisms of those who wish them harm, but I was banned INSTANTLY from the gamerghazi subbreddit for not supporting the shirtgate controversy. No warning, no discussion, no belligerence on my part, and then someone in another forum, I believe it a woman, responded to my dissenting view by posting a gif of a man being punched in the balls.

Remember "MAN-SPREADING"? That's a crock. I mean, you should let people take the seat next to you if necessary, but men have a higher center of gravity, and when I sit with my feet apart on a moving bus, it's so I won't topple over. Now, when someone needs to sit next to me, I put my legs together, and hold onto the bar. You need to be considerate of others, but the stance is not the problem. MRAs respond to the manspreading thing by posting comments about how men need extra room for the balls. I doubt that any of the idiots who said that even ride the bus.

A few weeks ago, a woman on twitter accused me of "mansplaining" for disagreeing with her thoughts on binge TV watching. I didn't know that the term applied to discussions of television. I'm a team player. If someone can explain to me how allowing myself to be disregarded for my gender will benefit feminism, I'll go along with it, but I need to be convinced.

>>What, exactly, is there TO protest? So far, everything is proceeding as it should be (I mean, obviously her being assaulted wasn't 'how it should be', but you get my drift).

Of course. You protest society. Criminals, you prosecute. By all accounts society seems to be holdinjg up its end. When the rapists break into your house, there's no room for denial, and former porn actress or no, the idea of children being forced to watch their mom's assault is something that the cops who I saw were clearly moved by. You can just see it on their faces.

Or, another possibility, hentai doesn't promote rape culture, and the sort of people who post hentai on 4chan are, surprisingly enough, not in favor of IRL rape.

It could be that, just as not all feminists are porn-hating sex-negative hypocrites, not all MRAs are would-be rapists lurking in the cyber-bushes. Perhaps there ARE two Anons - the monstrous tough guy Anons of your imagination, and the perfectly harmless tough guy Anons of reality?

At any rate, you are trying to derail the thread, Mr Holmes, so please try to get back on topic: namely, explaining (in detail!) why it is you feel there are no elements of victim-blaming or slut-shaming at work here.

>>Or, another possibility, hentai doesn't promote rape culture,

By definition, it most certainly does. However, rape culture isn't actual rape, so...

>>and the sort of people who post hentai on 4chan are, surprisingly enough, not in favor of IRL rape.

That's certainly true, of course.

There's a channel now where you can watch video game heroines being raped. The idea that a steady diet of porn, hentai, sexist video games, and (i would add) shitty abstinence-only sex education will turn young men into violent sex offenders has always been silly, but how is it preparing them for relationships with actual women? Judging by the MRAS, THE PUAS, THE TFLS, THE MGTOWS, some of them are having problems. These guys don't seem happy to me. This is traditionally considered a feminist issue, but men are the ones who are being exploited and may be doomed to a lifetime of NOT GETTING IT.

... and yet, for all the scary insinuations you make, these poor exploited sexist nerds nevertheless managed to bring justice to one of the worst rape coverups in recent years.

You do realize that a very large portion of rape-fetish material is consumed by women, right? And that rape is actually an extremely common fantasy for women? Yes, there are channels where you can watch video game heroines getting raped. There also channels where you can watch gay men kiss each other. OH HORRORS. MY MONOCLE.

Define "rape culture", as you use the term.

>>You do realize that a very large portion of rape-fetish material is consumed by women, right?

And there are lots of WOMEN who will tell you that men are better at math, so that MUST be a natural, normal brain thing!

>>... and yet, for all the scary insinuations you make, these poor exploited sexist nerds nevertheless managed to bring justice to one of the worst rape coverups in recent years.

Are they? In the course of arguing with me , you're restating what I already said.


Me: >>You've got anons posting hentai in 4chan, promulgating rape culture, and you've got anons in stuebenville, fighting rape culture.

Except that I'm more precise.I suspect that they're different nerds, but I don't actually say that, because there's no way of knowing. This has been my premise all along, that there's no

>>Yes, there are channels where you can watch video game heroines getting raped. There also channels where you can watch gay men kiss each other. OH HORRORS. MY MONOCLE.

Well played, Homer! Easy sarcasm is always a good substitute for an actual argument!

For /month he'll be your pen pal.

I get what he's trying to complain about and there may be a valid point which is waaay to generalized but god, shut the hell up.

One of the many, many problems with guys like this is that they conflate so-called Facebook Feminism with all feminism.

There are many, MANY valid criticisms to be leveled at that particular subset but it's hardly representative, and is more a reflection of systematic problems with social media than systematic problems with Feminism-in-the-broadest-sense.

Yup. Hell, there are many valid criticisms to be leveled at most strains of feminism. (Or any other movement, for that matter.) But I suppose if these assholes started being fair & nuanced in their criticisms, then they would have to acknowledge the limits of their criticisms.... which would suggest that there is some part, some tiny fraction, of feminism that is valid.

And we can't have that.

>> I'll stop dismissing "critics of feminism" out of hand once I encounter one that can actually find feminism on a map.

Master Ashtar - what about Camille Paglia? Or conversely, based on the grounds that Camille is herself a feminist, any one of her conservative opponents and detractors? I know we've discussed Professor Paglia before; in either example, you could construe the party involved as being a "critic of feminism" who is nevertheless quite capable of finding feminism on a map.

EH:
http://bit.ly/1czd3PM

Serious or joking? Never mind, I don't need to know. Either way, ghost stars for making me laugh.

* * * * * *

3rd Wave is kinda 1995.

I've considered myself to be feminist for 30 years, and I still don't know what wave it is.