Are men human beings?
androbot01
Veteran
Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
23 Aug 2015, 11:07 pm
adifferentname wrote:
He gave a deposition stating that he scored the pills in order to give them to women in pursuit of sex. I haven't read the full deposition, however, so I don't know the context - nor have I seen it provided in any articles.
New York Times
Quote:
In his testimony taken over four days in 2005 and 2006, Mr. Cosby said he had obtained seven prescriptions for quaaludes from a Los Angeles doctor in the 1970s as part of an effort to have sex with women. He said he never took the quaaludes himself.
That reads to me as a polite way of saying that he used drugs to make women physically vulnerable to him. He claims that everyone was doing that in the '70s. He may be right, but I still think he's a predator.
Quote:
Oh, and there is no such thing as a "rape drug", though there are drugs that are used to facilitate rape.
Thanks for the clarification.
23 Aug 2015, 11:28 pm
androbot01 wrote:
New York Times
That reads to me as a polite way of saying that he used drugs to make women physically vulnerable to him. He claims that everyone was doing that in the '70s. He may be right, but I still think he's a predator.
Quote:
In his testimony taken over four days in 2005 and 2006, Mr. Cosby said he had obtained seven prescriptions for quaaludes from a Los Angeles doctor in the 1970s as part of an effort to have sex with women. He said he never took the quaaludes himself.
That reads to me as a polite way of saying that he used drugs to make women physically vulnerable to him. He claims that everyone was doing that in the '70s. He may be right, but I still think he's a predator.
Like I said, the articles lack context. That line from the NYT doesn't contain a direct quote, nor does it provide the context regarding what Cosby is alleged to have said. It reads to me as an inferred connection between two unconnected statements, designed to create a specific narrative. The same is true of other articles I've read.
Simply put, I'd like to read the transcript of the deposition myself before I'd even consider it as 'evidence' of anything.
23 Aug 2015, 11:32 pm
adifferentname wrote:
androbot01 wrote:
New York Times
That reads to me as a polite way of saying that he used drugs to make women physically vulnerable to him. He claims that everyone was doing that in the '70s. He may be right, but I still think he's a predator.
Quote:
In his testimony taken over four days in 2005 and 2006, Mr. Cosby said he had obtained seven prescriptions for quaaludes from a Los Angeles doctor in the 1970s as part of an effort to have sex with women. He said he never took the quaaludes himself.
That reads to me as a polite way of saying that he used drugs to make women physically vulnerable to him. He claims that everyone was doing that in the '70s. He may be right, but I still think he's a predator.
Like I said, the articles lack context. That line from the NYT doesn't contain a direct quote, nor does it provide the context regarding what Cosby is alleged to have said. It reads to me as an inferred connection between two unconnected statements, designed to create a specific narrative. The same is true of other articles I've read.
Simply put, I'd like to read the transcript of the deposition myself before I'd even consider it as 'evidence' of anything.
Read away:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ition.html
Frankly my suspicion is that you have misogynistic leanings yourself, but i don't care.
This isn't a high school forensics class and i don't have any reason to try and "win" an argument over whether loudest, most active section of the men's rights movement is run by misogynists. It's manifestly true whether you agree with me or not.
23 Aug 2015, 11:37 pm
Lulz, who else would hijack the men's rights movement? I personally learned of it from a bookish lady on YouTube.
_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos
23 Aug 2015, 11:52 pm
blauSamstag wrote:
Thanks for the link. I'll read through it later.
Quote:
Frankly my suspicion is that you have misogynistic leanings yourself, but i don't care.
Of course you don't care. Your only intent is to make a baseless accusation in order to cast aspersions on my character. As insults go, this one is especially weak. And frankly, considering your incredibly low standard of what constitutes misogyny, my suspicion is you're more than a little sheltered when it comes to dealing with genuine adversity.
Quote:
This isn't a high school forensics class and i don't have any reason to try and "win" an argument over whether loudest, most active section of the men's rights movement is run by misogynists. It's manifestly true whether you agree with me or not.
Whilst this, on the other hand, is an example of actual bigotry. Your prejudiced opinions do not constitute 'manifest truth', no matter how hard you stamp your feet and claim you have no reason to "win an argument". I'm interested in discussion of subjects, not the soapbox ravings of ideologues, thanks.
24 Aug 2015, 12:06 am
adifferentname wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
Thanks for the link. I'll read through it later.
Quote:
Frankly my suspicion is that you have misogynistic leanings yourself, but i don't care.
Of course you don't care. Your only intent is to make a baseless accusation in order to cast aspersions on my character. As insults go, this one is especially weak. And frankly, considering your incredibly low standard of what constitutes misogyny, my suspicion is you're more than a little sheltered when it comes to dealing with genuine adversity.
Quote:
This isn't a high school forensics class and i don't have any reason to try and "win" an argument over whether loudest, most active section of the men's rights movement is run by misogynists. It's manifestly true whether you agree with me or not.
Oh, if i actually wanted to insult you, I'd put some effort into it.
I'm not making a baseless accusation. I'm making a reference to a widely accepted observation.
Well, accusing you of misogyny is mostly baseless. Cheap shots are cheap, right?
Quote:
Whilst this, on the other hand, is an example of actual bigotry. Your prejudiced opinions do not constitute 'manifest truth', no matter how hard you stamp your feet and claim you have no reason to "win an argument". I'm interested in discussion of subjects, not the soapbox ravings of ideologues, thanks.
If you don't believe the MRAs are misogynists, you haven't paid them any attention.
Paul Elam, who runs "a voice for men", can speak for himself:
https://twitter.com/AVoiceForMen/status ... 7469484032
https://twitter.com/AVoiceForMen/status ... 4375854080
http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2013/10/1 ... own-words/
24 Aug 2015, 1:18 am
blauSamstag wrote:
Oh, if i actually wanted to insult you, I'd put some effort into it.
I'm not making a baseless accusation. I'm making a reference to a widely accepted observation.
Well, accusing you of misogyny is mostly baseless. Cheap shots are cheap, right?
I'm not making a baseless accusation. I'm making a reference to a widely accepted observation.
Well, accusing you of misogyny is mostly baseless. Cheap shots are cheap, right?
More like largely unnecessary and demeaning to the shooter. That said, if you wish to demean yourself, that is your right.
Quote:
Quote:
Whilst this, on the other hand, is an example of actual bigotry. Your prejudiced opinions do not constitute 'manifest truth', no matter how hard you stamp your feet and claim you have no reason to "win an argument". I'm interested in discussion of subjects, not the soapbox ravings of ideologues, thanks.
If you don't believe the MRAs are misogynists, you haven't paid them any attention.
Or - and bear with me here because the evidence suggests you might struggle with this concept - it's entirely possible that people who are not you do not share your preconceptions about things and therefore make up their own minds and come to completely different conclusions.
Having taken a bit of time to read some of Elam's articles, I've come to the conclusion that his goals are largely good; that his desire to make positive changes is legitimate. I can understand why his writing style might come across as crass and caustic, but I don't believe for a second that he has a specific de facto hatred of women. That is to say, his ire seems to be genuinely directed at the inequalities he perceives rather than at women on the basis that they are female.
**EDIT** If you believe Elam is typical of MRAs then I've obviously been paying more attention than you have. Your prejudice is showing again, and this is the second time you've posted something that comes across as idle bigotry to me.
Quote:
Paul Elam, who runs "a voice for men", can speak for himself:
https://twitter.com/AVoiceForMen/status ... 7469484032
https://twitter.com/AVoiceForMen/status ... 7469484032
I read the article, giving context to the seemingly hateful tweet. It actually comes across as a well-reasoned piece. Again, I'd have to ask which part you take specific umbrage to.
Quote:
https://twitter.com/AVoiceForMen/status/632249254375854080
This one crosses into the realms of absurdity in places, but the message remains clear. He's espousing equality here, not hatred. If you look past the rhetoric, along with the narrative style he's adopted, his actual point is supported by statistical data. We know that men spend twice as much on Valentine's Day on average, that 20% of women buy gifts for themselves and that a significant percentage of men feel obligated to buy gifts for their partners.
His secondary message, that we should avoid relationships with people who are only interested in our wallets, is one which goes both (indeed all) ways.
Again, I'm not seeing overt misogyny here. He does have an androcentric perspective, but that's to be expected from someone who who is a Men's Rights Activist is it not?
Quote:
http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2013/10/18/paul-elam-of-a-voice-for-men-in-his-own-words/
I'm not going to go through the entire list of quotes here in a bid to provide context, but will instead focus on what is arguably the most incendiary.
Paul Elam wrote:
I have ideas about women who spend evenings in bars hustling men for drinks, playing on their sexual desires … And the women who drink and make out, doing everything short of sex with men all evening, and then go to his apartment at 2:00 a.m.. Sometimes both of these women end up being the “victims” of rape.
But are these women asking to get raped?
In the most severe and emphatic terms possible the answer is NO, THEY ARE NOT ASKING TO GET RAPED.
They are freaking begging for it.
Damn near demanding it.
And all the outraged PC demands to get huffy and point out how nothing justifies or excuses rape won’t change the fact that there are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING b***h – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.
But are these women asking to get raped?
In the most severe and emphatic terms possible the answer is NO, THEY ARE NOT ASKING TO GET RAPED.
They are freaking begging for it.
Damn near demanding it.
And all the outraged PC demands to get huffy and point out how nothing justifies or excuses rape won’t change the fact that there are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING b***h – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.
The article this is taken from has had an interesting editorial note added to it.
Editorial note wrote:
Editorial note: we find it fascinating that this article, written in 2010, is still frequently cited by the Mainstream Media and critics of the Men’s Human Rights Movement as “typical” of the views of the movement and/or this web site. The truth is, this was written in the very early days of A Voice for Men to be deliberately provocative, to get attention and challenge people to think. It was, to use a phrase feminist Camille Paglia once used, a “necessary savaging” of a once-taboo subject.
Today the culture at large is beginning to acknowledge that both men and women can and do engage in abusive behavior that can provoke violent, dangerous reactions in psychotic and irresponsible individuals, and now that the culture is beginning to recognize that men are at least as likely to be victims of sexual assault as women, and women far more likely to be perpetrators of sexual assault than we’d like to think, a more mature dialogue seems to be developing on the non-gendered nature of rape and sexual assault and abuse. Many such articles on that have appeared on AVfM in subsequent years, so it seems strange that this old article is still repeatedly gone back to by critics. Why, out of the countless thousands written on this site, pick this one and hold it up as “typical” when it is simply not?
From our point of view, we think its intentionally provocative style no longer serves its intended purpose and it’s being obsessed over by people who want to avoid thinking hard about complex issue. We think it mostly tends to be quoted out of context by dishonest ideologues as “typical” rather than the unusually provocative article that it was. But we’ll let you be the judge. Here’s the article in all its infamous glory. After you finish it, may we suggest you read what we have to say today rather than continuing to obsess about stuff from the early days of the site, back in 2010, written from a place we no longer inhabit? Just a thought. –Editors
Today the culture at large is beginning to acknowledge that both men and women can and do engage in abusive behavior that can provoke violent, dangerous reactions in psychotic and irresponsible individuals, and now that the culture is beginning to recognize that men are at least as likely to be victims of sexual assault as women, and women far more likely to be perpetrators of sexual assault than we’d like to think, a more mature dialogue seems to be developing on the non-gendered nature of rape and sexual assault and abuse. Many such articles on that have appeared on AVfM in subsequent years, so it seems strange that this old article is still repeatedly gone back to by critics. Why, out of the countless thousands written on this site, pick this one and hold it up as “typical” when it is simply not?
From our point of view, we think its intentionally provocative style no longer serves its intended purpose and it’s being obsessed over by people who want to avoid thinking hard about complex issue. We think it mostly tends to be quoted out of context by dishonest ideologues as “typical” rather than the unusually provocative article that it was. But we’ll let you be the judge. Here’s the article in all its infamous glory. After you finish it, may we suggest you read what we have to say today rather than continuing to obsess about stuff from the early days of the site, back in 2010, written from a place we no longer inhabit? Just a thought. –Editors
Their more recent articles certainly do come across as being far more mature and reasonable.
As well as the following disclaimer from Elam himself.
Quote:
I have noted the objections of some MRA’s here to the perspective expressed in this article about the etiology of rape. After careful consideration, I reject those concerns. I am not painting men as incapable of controlling their sexual impulses, but simply acknowledging that there is a tiny fraction of men who, for whatever reason, won’t. And I am suggesting that if women are concerned about their safety from a crime like rape, a common sense acceptance of that and choices consistent with that knowledge are in order. I may not have said it as delicately as some would prefer, but the message was clear nonetheless.
I'm not going to defend the tone of the article, nor am I going to condemn it. Freedom of speech not only includes the right to express an unpopular opinion in a potentially offensive way, its very existence is reliant upon the ability to do so.
Rather I'll again briefly examine the inherent sentiment within the piece, whilst again supposing (as is right and proper in all cases) that the goal of the writer is to do good rather than to cause harm, and keeping in mind that he's specifically talking about rape when it occurs as a crime of opportunity.
The idea that there are some men for whom the word "no" has little-to-no meaning is hardly a new one. For decades, women's self-defence classes have been built around the concept of how to deal with such predators. The idea that we somehow prevent such crimes entirely through social engineering is, in my opinion, a naive one. In the meantime, what matters is that such predators do indeed exist and that conventional wisdom dictates one would take precautions to minimise the risk of being assaulted. That advice would hold equally true for (especially young) men who are more likely to be violently assaulted in public.
Of course none of that is to say that someone who is assaulted is to blame for their attack, nor does it suggest that they in some way 'deserved' to be attacked. Although Elam's statement here does seem to imply this, he does not overtly state it. His word choice is as deliberate as it is misguided, but he hasn't technically said anything that is incorrect.
Elam also, by his own admission, applies the same standard to a hypothetical male victim of car theft who created an opportunity for a would be thief by parking his unlocked vehicle, with the keys in the ignition, in a "bad neighbourhood". Doesn't that sound rather equal?
Honestly, my assessment of Elam is that he's at worst a full-blown misanthrope who probably hates himself just as much as the next man, woman or child.
24 Aug 2015, 2:35 am
Such BS:
""Progress for men will not be gained by debate, reason or typical channels of grievance available to segments of the population that the world actually gives a damn about. The progress we need will only be realized by inflicting enough pain on the agents of hate, in public view, that it literally shocks society out of its current co
Interesting thing is that quote by Elam grabs attention but it doesn't paint him in a good light. Even if this Elam guy is a victim of female abuse (which it sounds like to me) the role models we need to look up to are those who were abused and rise ABOVE IT, not sink beneath it.
I know it goes both ways. I've been the victim of emotional abuse by females and yeah, it can get ugly. But it happens more often that women stick up for men who are abusers than the reverse. Maybe there has a been a bit of a swing in recent years where men are holding back more, but this is a natural and progressive step. Men do need to take some accountability and check their power. It's natural and healthy. Women like men who recognize their power but still decide to keep it IN CHECK. This is never going to change and it's not worth arguing about. You can be a confident man without resorting to petty bullying. This is what women find attractive. They find confidence attractive but more than than they want confidence combined with some self-restraint.
24 Aug 2015, 2:51 am
MarketAndChurch wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Spoken like a true believer.
This all-or-nothing totalitarian lunacy is what's driving left leaning moderates towards the right.
What could be wrong with experimenting with society in this way?
You've just got to have faith and defend all members of this coalition and their agendas, and we'll all at least get something out of this. We need the unfortunate experience of each victim group we defend, from women, to gays, to muslims, to blacks in America, to help make the Right look bad. Once they look bad, they wont' have any moral legitimacy, and we'll rule this country, and you'll at least get something out of it. But it requires everyone doing their part to defend one another from inquiry. When someone gets critical of women or muslims, it is your job to defend these groups, because we all rise and fall together.
It's a real hoot to see people defend both women and Muslims.
24 Aug 2015, 2:55 am
MarketAndChurch wrote:
What else do you think can spark the revolution. Revolution isn't coming fast enough so we have to make up hysteria's to bring about the messianic age that we've been waiting to create. We only need one to break through to the point that everything breaks down and society falls apart, and, well, as an organized front, we can just blame capitalism and democracy and religion for having failed us all, and we'll be able to control most of the country. Besides, who do you think will be "bankrupt" but the creditors and banks who puppet the system.
Leaving this system, we'll be able to build one that cares for everybody, but that kind of world can only built atop the ruins of the current one we live in.
Leaving this system, we'll be able to build one that cares for everybody, but that kind of world can only built atop the ruins of the current one we live in.
In other words, don't let truth and honesty get in the way of your agenda?
24 Aug 2015, 4:01 am
heavenlyabyss wrote:
Interesting thing is that quote by Elam grabs attention but it doesn't paint him in a good light. Even if this Elam guy is a victim of female abuse (which it sounds like to me) the role models we need to look up to are those who were abused and rise ABOVE IT, not sink beneath it.
That's an excellent point. His vitriol does smack of someone who is dealing with a deep-seated issue poorly. I don't think anyone is actually suggesting we look up to Elam, but I do think it's wrong to dismiss him as a boogieman just because he rails in the manner that he does.
Quote:
I know it goes both ways. I've been the victim of emotional abuse by females and yeah, it can get ugly. But it happens more often that women stick up for men who are abusers than the reverse. Maybe there has a been a bit of a swing in recent years where men are holding back more, but this is a natural and progressive step. Men do need to take some accountability and check their power. It's natural and healthy. Women like men who recognize their power but still decide to keep it IN CHECK. This is never going to change and it's not worth arguing about. You can be a confident man without resorting to petty bullying. This is what women find attractive. They find confidence attractive but more than than they want confidence combined with some self-restraint.
It sounds a little like you're generalising here, which is fair enough as 'gentle giant' is certainly a commonly desirable trait, but not representative of all women by any means. Part of the problem is that some people are attracted or especially vulnerable to abusive a***holes regardless of sex or sexuality. It's also not always so easy to tell the difference between a confident man (or woman) and an abuser until already deeply ensnared in an unhealthy relationship.
And let's not even get started on the hotly-disputed mutually abusive relationships.
24 Aug 2015, 7:44 pm
Are men human beings? The simple answer to that is yes they are they are as much human beings as women are! How society perceives males though is a different story and justifies and vilifies the human male and that only males do bad things and when they are not they are just buffoons and useless and only use in society is money and breeding. It is time to put this ideology to a stop, end the stereotypes and sexism against both sexes when we see the sexism against females that is understandable but when it is towards men it is ignored, in order to be a true human being it is time to rise up and reveal the sexism against both sexes. Men get abused, men get raped as well as women, it is a fact but society only focuses on the abuse and rape towards women, and when there are men out to help those women in need they get vilified and lumped with the abusers and rapists simply because they are male. Most men do not rape or abuse and I am pretty sure most women do not rape or abuse, although I was raped and abused by a woman even I see beyond that and do not vilify all women based upon the actions of few and same should apply to men. I may not trust many women since then but I don't hate or judge them and willing to move one and maybe go for another chance in life. I am just sick of sexism and the sick ass one sided double standards of it all. Everyone is human whether you are male or female just don't rape, abuse one another and do not vilify an entire gender, people are as*holes and monsters but not all people are as*holes and monsters. Welcome to humanity be a better person and care for everyone regardless of gender. I have a right to stick up for myself and my gender and I will not oppress another gender I want equality and harmony and humanity restored.
_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList
25 Aug 2015, 10:37 pm
I will simplify it, people are people, don't be bad and don't be mean do not oppress one another and do not ignore those who are being oppressed that is all. Learn to work together and help eachother!
_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList
25 Aug 2015, 11:22 pm
AspieOtaku wrote:
I will simplify it, people are people, don't be bad and don't be mean do not oppress one another and do not ignore those who are being oppressed that is all. Learn to work together and help eachother!
Quite so.
It starts with not demonising ostensibly decent human beings for simply viewing the world differently. Of course, as soon as they legitimately support actual hate and/or harm, we should not hesitate to call them out and attempt to educate and heal.
26 Aug 2015, 12:05 am
adifferentname wrote:
AspieOtaku wrote:
I will simplify it, people are people, don't be bad and don't be mean do not oppress one another and do not ignore those who are being oppressed that is all. Learn to work together and help eachother!
Quite so.
It starts with not demonising ostensibly decent human beings for simply viewing the world differently. Of course, as soon as they legitimately support actual hate and/or harm, we should not hesitate to call them out and attempt to educate and heal.
_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| First human implanted with neuralink |
03 Feb 2024, 6:55 pm |
| Scientists Discover The Human Brain Is Even More Powerful |
05 Mar 2024, 3:38 am |
| Grotesque Human Rights Scandal Happening To Autistic People |
05 Apr 2024, 7:25 am |
