The Feminist Kos

Comments

63 comments posted
kos-tic comments (hunh-huh-huhuh)

You rock, MG. Nicely framed and some nice posts in Kos-world. Somebody needed to say what you did to poster Glinda.

Those posts are the ones that really drive me nuts -- well, those and the "why doesn't NOW complain about Chippendales" kind of things. Arg. That last kind just embarasses me, I think.

odum's picture
Posted by odum (not verified) on 7 June 2005 - 10:27am
The "real" Negro Island

If whites were to put on some show the demeaned blacks living on some island and then dismissed blacks who protested by saying "it's rating month," and to be dismissive those who are in black studies, there would be a storm!

I wonder if Daily Kos would run a KKK ad?

"The animals looked from pig to man, for man to pig, and from pig to man, again. But it was already impossible to say which was which."

George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

Matsu's picture
Posted by Matsu on 7 June 2005 - 11:03am
Re: The Feminist Kos

Great piece; you culled some fantastic responses to this. (Mine, for anyone interested, are here and here.)

It's truly disappointing to see how readily accessed such attitudes toward women are, even among the allegedly enlightened.

Shakespeare's Sister's picture
Posted by Shakespeare's Sister (not verified) on 7 June 2005 - 2:18pm
The Sexism and Hypocrisy of Females

If there was a television commercial which contained a scene in which a male kicks a female in the vulva, then I could understand why other females would consider the commercial to be sexist, humiliating, sexist and unacceptable. However unless those very same females became just as upset with any commercial that shows a female kicking a male in the testicles; they would be proving themselves to be hypocritical, sexist, and biased.

Like I have stated a million times before, being hit in the vulva is as painful as being hit in the testicles and there is sufficient scientific evidence to prove this; yet testicular kicking is condoned by society while vulva kicking is considered derogatory, unacceptable and immoral; demonstrating just how sexist this society happens to be. The fact that females become enraged when they see a scene of two females throwing pies at each other while they actually condone and laugh at a scene which shows a female kicking a male in the testicles is a clear demonstration of the how sexist, hypocritical and fascist females have become.

A kick to the groin is far more painful than being hit anywhere else in the body with exception to the eyes. This is due to the fact that the testicles, clitoris, vestibule and labia majora contain an extremely high population of mechanoreceptors (pressure-receptors). The high concentration of mechanoreceptors means even a small force applied to the testicles/vulva will activate the nerves; causing a dull, aching, throbbing, intense pain that feels like the area is under extreme pressure. The pain is incapacitating and can cause many long term health problems.

In males it can lead to sterility, while in females it can lead to nerve damage which will most likely affect sexual arousal. Chronic pain disorders can be caused by a kick to the genitalia, however this seems to be more common in females. Therefore a kick to the groin is a far greater issue than a slap to the face, and considering females kick males in the groin far more than males kick females in the groin; females are the main perpetrators of this act.

Chris Key's picture
Posted by Chris Key (not verified) on 7 June 2005 - 7:28pm
Sexism

Chris Key is right on the money with his post. Women truly have become extremely sexist toward males, even their own sons. It;s no wonder men no longer want to date them....

jtest28's picture
Posted by jtest28 (not verified) on 10 June 2005 - 1:45am
You misunderstand

I am a big supporter of gay rights. You can date whomever you want, and as far as I'm concerned, you can marry him, too. Why would I object?

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 10 June 2005 - 7:40am
groin kicking

I agree completely that there is a hypocracy regarding society's opinion of genital kicking against males where it would not be tolerated by females. What can I say other than it is a grave injustice.

anonymous lurker's picture
Posted by anonymous lurker (not verified) on 14 July 2005 - 5:42pm
Society is unjust!

Why not talk to the men in power and change it?

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 14 July 2005 - 6:13pm
Your comment would make sense if....

...violence against women by men weren't an epidemic (and thus a knee to the groin is often a woman's only recourse to safety)

...the debate were about the commercial -- I've not even seen it and don't really care about it. (Of course I said that already, but since it didn't register with you then, it probably won't register with you now.)

...the people doing the most kicking of testicles probably are other men

...forms of physical violence between the sexes were even an issue in this discussion.

Of course, if you didn't paint all of us females as these awful hypocrites, nobody would listen to your MRA plaints. We're just calling for equality -- which, on DKos, can mean something as simple as being heard without outright ridicule and contempt. But it seems that this is just too radical for some men.

Meanwhile, until you can pass legislation to keep all women in leg irons, you might want to ask what it is you're doing to provoke women into attacking your family jewels. I do not know a single woman who would do that without being seriously provoked.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 7 June 2005 - 7:45pm
Violence Against Women kicks Ass

As an Anal cunt song title said...

Women: Nature's Punching Bag.

Analog Worms's picture
Posted by Analog Worms (not verified) on 7 June 2005 - 8:28pm
Sexism

I can't help but draw the conclusion that here it is only MEN who've contracted sexism. You have thrown a hissy fit because KOS hasn't treated your side with respect. Now you have MRA's over here dissing you, while you have been dismissive of their assertions of female sexism. This is true with regard to the "Violence against women" slogan , which strikes me as inherently sexist. You claim to want equality which apparently means to you a monopoly on victimhood. I have also seen your willful ignorance of the fact that WOMEN are responsible for MOST child abuse and are equally violent toward spouses. If you want equality, you will be respected if you demonstrate EQUAL RESPONSIBILITY.

material man's picture
Posted by material man (not verified) on 7 June 2005 - 8:48pm
Very interesting

Do you have any evidence, or just your firm conviction?

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 7 June 2005 - 9:43pm
The Ignorance and Sexism of Feminists

media girl said: " ...violence against women by men weren't an epidemic (and thus a knee to the groin is often a woman's only recourse to safety)"

Chris Key Says:

1. 70% of all persons who are admitted to the Emergency Room happen to be males.

2. Over 70% of murder victims happen to be males.

3. Less than 1% of females who are admitted to the Emergency Room are there due to domestic violence.

4. Less than 1% of females are raped.

5. Females are more likely to be attacked by an animal or be involved in a car accident than being a victim of violence at the hands of a man; therefore YOUR comment is unsubstantiated, fallacious, illogical and absurd.

6. While females are more likely to be treated for wounds they sustained during an episode of domestic violence, there is a huge amount of scientific evidence which proves that the vast majority of domestic violence is in fact initiated by females; something that can be confirmed by police reports.

7. The vast majority of domestic violence perpetrated by females is ignored because Domestic Violence Advocates such as Anne O’Dell train the Law Enforcement Officers (police officers, commanders, district attorneys, judges, victim advocates) that; “if a police officer is arresting more than 8% women, you've got a real problem. When an officer arrests 12% or 15% women, I'm outraged.� Anne O’Dell also claims; “O'Dell says that dual arrests should occur in no more than 3% of incidents.�

There is no substantiated evidence to support your claim that there is an epidemic of violence against women; in fact there is an extremely high amount of substantiated evidence which proves there is NO epidemic of male perpetrated violence against females.

To see some substantiated information on this subject, visit; http://www.mens-rights.net/law/violence.htm

media girl said: “Of course, if you didn't paint all of us females as these awful hypocrites, nobody would listen to your MRA plaints. We're just calling for equality -- which, on DKos, can mean something as simple as being heard without outright ridicule and contempt. But it seems that this is just too radical for some men.�

Chris Key Says:

Equality is the notion that all parties are treated in the exact same manner; something that does not occur in this society. The entire law system within the Western world gives females a large degree of impunity along with far more rights than males, while treating males in a manner that is harsh, unfair, cruel and meant to weigh them down physically, psychologically and financially; meaning males are oppressed as those attributes fit the actual definition of the word ‘oppression’.

Females who commit paternity fraud are given impunity while males who are obtain a DNA test proving they are NOT the biological father of the child they are paying child support are FORCED to continue paying child support and if they don’t; they are placed in jail.

Males who are unable to pay child support due to living in poverty are thrown in jail while females who refuse to pay child support even though they are wealthy enough to do so are given impunity.

Males who murder their spouses are sentenced to jail terms that are on average 3 times more severe than the jail terms that females who murder their spouses are given.

At least 55% of child murderers happen to be females yet legislation does it’s utmost best to protect these women by declaring them to be *victims* through unsubstantiated claims of mental illness that have never been scientifically proven to exist.

Around 70% of child abuse is perpetrated by women, yet females are more likely to obtain custodial access of children during a divorce.

70% of divorces are filed by women, most of which are based around the adulterous actions of the woman; however these women are far very much likely to obtain alimony/child support and custodial access.

Females who make accusations of sexual harassment that are proven to be false are given impunity along with the right to keep their job and even seek compensation; without having to compensate their employer or fellow employee who they slandered and defamed.

Females who make false accusations of domestic violence, rape, child abuse and child sexual abuse during divorce proceedings are given impunity, even when their accusations are proven to be false; and these accusations can be used to deny the father custodial access to his children; in fact lawyers encourage females to make false accusations for this very reason.

The fact is all fascist movements have tried to perceive themselves as fighting for equality when in reality they were merely fighting for supremacy. The law system is very anti-male as has been proven and females who commit crime are given at least partial impunity while males who commit crime are treated harshly.

There have been documented cases in which females who committed child sexual abuse were given impunity based on the fact they were female. Laws such as the Primary Aggressor Law Act were passed with the intention of giving impunity to females who perpetrated domestic violence; with the law act being worded in a manner which basically states a male can be arrested for whatever violence his spouse initiates.

Bill 117 basically states a female only has to make an accusation of domestic violence and her spouse WILL be placed in jail for 24 hours, and during this time she can have a restraining order filed against him and claim for his assets.

I have studied gender issues for a very long time, in fact I study gender issues on a daily basis for a few years now and I have a lot of scientific and law enforcement studies which can substantiate the claims I have made.

Your statements are both unsubstantiated and fallacious and you may fool the average person but you will not fool an expert on gender issues; and I am an expert on gender issues as I study gender issues on a daily basis and I know far more than you do. Therefore I ask you the following question; are you fighting for equality or are you fighting for female supremacy?

There indeed is a correlation between feminist ideologies and Nazism which can be demonstrated from the famous quote made by Adolf Hitler;

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.� Said Adolf Hitler (Ralph Manheim translation published by Houghton-Mifflin (1943), Page 403)

Feminism has tried to perceive their action as being for the benefit of the children, when in reality they are for the benefit of the women at the expensive of men and children. Feminism is perhaps the most fascist movement to ever exist and the mannerisms of feminists sure do fit the description of *evil fascists*.

If you wish to learn more about gender issues I recommend my website which contains a large amount of substantiated information; www.mens-rights.net

Chris Key's picture
Posted by Chris Key (not verified) on 7 June 2005 - 8:57pm
I can't help but wonder

If women are getting away with so much through the legal system, why did the men write those laws in the first place? Could it be that you're blinded by your victim mentality?

I'm also curious as to what makes you an expert on women's experience.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 7 June 2005 - 9:46pm
....

Females make up 52% of the population; meaning females are in the majority and males are in the minority; meaning that females control the voting base. Feminism has come a long way since it's inception in the year of 1848. Women's suffrage is the key to feminism remaining as such a stronghold and can be demonstrated by the fact that:

- When feminist Belva Ann Lockwood started her own political party in the 19th century and campaigned for the Presidency of the USA; she received very few votes due to the fact women weren't allowed to vote at the time. As a result the feminists realised that women's suffrage was important in allowing feminism to become a force; which is why women such as Susan B Anthony began demanding that women be given the right to vote.

Politicians are reliant on the support of the majority of voters in order to retain their position in parliament; meaning they need to ensure they gain the approval and support of the majority. With females being within the majority, the politicians have had to meet the demands of the feminists at all times.

I suggest that you educate yourself on the subject of gender issues before you make such unsubstantiated and illogical statements, as it is quite obvious that you know very little.

Chris Key's picture
Posted by Chris Key (not verified) on 7 June 2005 - 10:37pm
I have a better idea

Try to get a grasp of reality. You're only hurting yourself.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 7 June 2005 - 10:55pm
Reality

Actually I have quite a firm grasp of reality, you on the otherhand have demonstrated that you are quite ignorant and uneducated in regards to gender issues. So far you have resorted to making sarcasitic, derogatory and unsubstantiated remarks; which isn't anything to be proud of.

Chris Key's picture
Posted by Chris Key (not verified) on 8 June 2005 - 12:03am
I would respond seriously

...but your posts have not merited it.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 8 June 2005 - 12:24am
Actually

Again you resort to making unfounded insults because you cannot refute the claims I have made. Your posts have only demonstrated that you're uneducated and ignorant in regards to gender issues; which is why you rely on making unfounded insults in your replies. If you want to be taken seriously you need to start acting in a responsible and mature manner.

Chris Key's picture
Posted by Chris Key (not verified) on 8 June 2005 - 12:51am
No, actually

Chris, I make it a strict policy not to try to argue with fools. They only drag you down to their level and then overwhelm you with their greater experience.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 8 June 2005 - 1:02am
Actually,

media girl,

So far you have demonstrated that you know NOTHING about gender issues; as all you have been able to do is make unsubstantiated claims and immature insults. On your website you do not display any knowledge on the subject of gender issues; instead you merely display your own insecurities through the initiation of illogical and pathetic arguments that contain little to no substance.

Do you want to know how I found your website? A member at a highly intellectual forum made a post in which he discussed the absurd arguments that you made; causing the entire board to laugh at you. I even showed your comments to a few women and they laughed at you. Since I have refuted everything that both Pennywit and yourself have said, I think it's time for me to leave.

Chris Key's picture
Posted by Chris Key (not verified) on 8 June 2005 - 1:52am
Now that's the funniest thing you've said all day

You're quite adept at generous application of adjectives. Overall, reading your posts have been an amusing distraction. You should really consider taking up writing a novel. A knack for fiction writing is a gift that should not be casually dismissed.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 8 June 2005 - 2:08am
Sweet Jesus

Chris, I think I speak for much of the male gender when I say;

SHUT UP. You're making all of us with a Y chromosome look bad. It's to the point where somebody should confiscate your Man Card and rescind your membership in the Old Boy's Network for your display of unmanliness. It's not faaaaaair, you whine, and you support your prating with screwed-up statistics and half-assed assertions in a pitiful rant that sounds like a feminist beat you up and stole your lunch money.

Wanna know what really sticks in my craw? This:

3. Less than 1% of females who are admitted to the Emergency Room are there due to domestic violence.

4. Less than 1% of females are raped.

Number three is irrelevant, and number four is just plain offensive. Even assuming these statistics have a single shred of credibility, they prove nothing beyond your apparent desire for a quota of assaults -- sexual or otherwise -- before you will consider violence against women to be a problem.

Moreover, statistic number four is utterly irrelevant in assessing whether rape -- as a crime -- is a societal problem. You will likely find that a small percentage are murdered, assaulted, or mugged, buit that doesn't mean that those crimes aren't a societal problem. Far more useful statistics can be gleaned from, say, an assessment of what percentage of crimes are rapes, or the number of rapes that occur in a geographic area, or even a statistic, compiled over time, that illustrates the relative frequency of rapes or other crimes.

I expect that such statistics -- far more accurate metrics of crime -- tell a different story than the horseshit you're trying to spin here.

The rest of your points? Mere assertions. It would be overly pedantic of me to demand citations for every single statistic in this particular forum, but the gravity of your statements, including your assertions regarding child support, divorce statistics, and women's actions with "impunity," as you term it, demand a citation beyond "check out my Web site."

Agreeance

The funny part is that I can agree with part of your thesis. I have seen cases where the threat of sexual-harassment suits has caused some companies to become hyper-sensitive about such things, turning the workplace environment into a potential minefield. I have read about domestic-law cases that are not resolved in a manner that can truly be considered gender-neutral.

I can see that a person could look at these issues anc conclude that there needs to be reform of one sort or another.

But that sort of reform requires thoughtful, reasoned, educated discussion of the issues. It requires an adherence to fact and a willingness to change laws without undercutting their purpose.

You offer none of that. Your posts here are neither thoughtful nor reasoned. Your "education" largely consists of cherry-picked, questionable statistiscs that are selected not for the purpose of discussion, but so you can scream them at the top of your lungs and assert that they justify your, quite frankly, mysognist agenda.

Is my little rant here reasoned? No. Was I thoughtful here? No. But then again, your tantrum demands outright, over-the-top mockery rather than reasoned debate.

--|PW|--

pennywit's picture
Posted by pennywit on 7 June 2005 - 10:31pm
Refuting the Unsubstantiatd Accusations Made By Pennywit

Pennywit Says: “Chris, I think I speak for much of the male gender when I say;

SHUT UP. You're making all of us with a Y chromosome look bad. It's to the point where somebody should confiscate your Man Card and rescind your membership in the Old Boy's Network for your display of unmanliness. It's not faaaaaair, you whine, and you support your prating with screwed-up statistics and half-assed assertions in a pitiful rant that sounds like a feminist beat you up and stole your lunch money.�

Chris Key Says:

Your entire claims are unsubstantiated, illogical, absurd, fallacious and just pure bigotry. For example you say; “male gender� when the correct term is; “male sex�, demonstrating you don’t even understand basic language skills, then you go ahead and make some outrageous claim that you’re speaking for the majority of males when in reality you’re only speaking for YOURSELF.

Are you so ignorant and narrow minded that you think any other man who has a differing opinion to you MUST be part of a minority of males? Throughout your poorly written article you NEVER wrote anything that was substantiated, truthful or even logical; instead you chose to resort to using pathetic insults and making unfounded generalisations. In other words your debating skills are extremely poor and your knowledge on gender issues is pretty poor as well; you should educate yourself before you write such fallacious tripe as you have just demonstrated how uneducated you are on this subject.

Pennywit Says: Wanna know what really sticks in my craw? This:

3. Less than 1% of females who are admitted to the Emergency Room are there due to domestic violence.

4. Less than 1% of females are raped.

Number three is irrelevant, and number four is just plain offensive. Even assuming these statistics have a single shred of credibility, they prove nothing beyond your apparent desire for a quota of assaults -- sexual or otherwise -- before you will consider violence against women to be a problem.

Chris Key Says:

Again you have proceeded to make unsubstantiated claims; demonstrate that you are most likely unable to think in a manner that is rational, unbiased and analytical. The fact you believe my claims were in some way *offensive* and meaningful of *nothing* proves that when you’re confronted with evidence that does not support your beliefs; you resort to viewing them through an emotional standpoint rather than using a logical, scientific, unbiased standpoint; causing you to come to a conclusion that is illogical, irrational and just plain absurd.

For example, you have came to the conclusion that I must not consider violence against women to be a problem based on the fact I referred to substantiated evidence that proves violence against women is rare; however you discarded the fact that the reason I stated those statistics is because the woman known as *media girl* made a claim that there is an epidemic of male perpetrated violence against women.

This indicates that you’re a biased hypocrite, who is intentionally taking my comments out of context, then proceeding to make assertions that are not only illogical and untrue but are also insane and offensive.

For the past 45 years the feminists have been stating that violence against men is rare and have used this as their main argument as to why the state should not consider female perpetrated violence against males to be a problem; yet I don’t see you discussing this fact which suggests you’re a hypocritical bigot.

Any sane and reasonable person would look at the statistics and understand that the numbers are proof that there is no epidemic of male perpetrated violence against females; however you chose to find them *offensive* based on the fact they didn’t portray females as being *poor little victims*.

So I ask you this; what is a man supposed to do when a woman makes an unsubstantiated and fallacious claim that there is an epidemic of male perpetrated violence against females? Seriously since you claim the manner in which I responded was *offensive*, I would like to know. Is the man supposed to sit there and say; “yes dear, there is an epidemic of violence against women even though there is no conclusive scientific data to substantiate such a claim, but it must be true because you said it�.

In other words it seems you’re trying to imply that my statement was offensive because it was *politically incorrect*.

Pennywit Says: Moreover, statistic number four is utterly irrelevant in assessing whether rape -- as a crime -- is a societal problem. You will likely find that a small percentage are murdered, assaulted, or mugged, buit that doesn't mean that those crimes aren't a societal problem. Far more useful statistics can be gleaned from, say, an assessment of what percentage of crimes are rapes, or the number of rapes that occur in a geographic area, or even a statistic, compiled over time, that illustrates the relative frequency of rapes or other crimes.

I expect that such statistics -- far more accurate metrics of crime -- tell a different story than the horseshit you're trying to spin here.

Chris Key Says:

Again your uncouth mannerisms and ignorance are displayed within your juvenile and illogical comments. You ignore the fact that my comments were made in reply to *media girls* claim that there is an epidemic of male perpetrated violence against women; demonstrating that you’re taking my comments well out of proportion so you can produce an argument over an issue that does not even exist. The fact is there is no epidemic of male perpetrated violence against females, based on the fact that *media girl* made an unsubstantiated, unfounded and completely fallacious claim.

It must also be noted that it appears you are engaging in an act of *projection*, as your comments have no basis to them at all and are just completely unsubstantiated. For example, you state that the frequency of rape in comparison to other crimes produces a far more accurate story; however this only demonstrates your ignorance and lack of understanding of the issue because various studies on all forms of crime have proven that rape is one of the least common crimes in society.

If you’re going to make derogatory and sarcastic remarks you should at least educate yourself on the subject at hand, as your ignorance and lack of understanding on the subject has caused you to make a fool out of yourself.

The only people who are trying to spin horseshit are both yourself and *mediagirl*, as your writings have quite clearly demonstrated.

Pennywit Says: The rest of your points? Mere assertions. It would be overly pedantic of me to demand citations for every single statistic in this particular forum, but the gravity of your statements, including your assertions regarding child support, divorce statistics, and women's actions with "impunity," as you term it, demand a citation beyond "check out my Web site."

Chris Key Says:

An intelligent man would understand that a Men’s Rights website contains a large amount of citations to substantiated and reliable sources, and my website happens to be a Men’s Rights website which is clearly portrayed within the URL www.mens-rights.net; therefore an intelligent man would understand that the reason I gave a link to my website is because my website contains citations that substantiate the claims I have made. However a dumb man wouldn’t even think about this because they do not have the ability to process information at a sound level.

At my website I have a list of citations to reliable studies; therefore I decided to give a link to my website as it would be far quicker and easier than having to write every single citation; which would take up a lot of space. However since you ask for citations here you go; http://www.childrensjustice.org/stats.htm

"Ninety percent of divorced fathers have less than full custody of their children." Jonathan M. Honeycutt, Ph.D.(c), M.P.A., M.A., I.P.C. Director of Research, Clinical & Consulting Psychotherapist, National Institute for Divorce Research, Panama City, Florida.

________________________________________

Children from fatherless homes account for:

• 63% of youth suicides. (Source: US Dept. of Health & Human Services, Bureau of the Census).

• 71% of pregnant teenagers. (Source: US Dept. of Health & Human Services)

• 90% of all homeless and runaway children.

• 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)

• 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders. (Source: Center for Disease Control).

• 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger. (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol. 14, p. 403-26, 1978).

• 71% of all high school dropouts. (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools).

• 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers. (Source: Rainbows for all God`s Children).

• 85% of all youths sitting in prisons. (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992).

________________________________________

The State of Fatherhood

• 37.9% of fathers have no access/visitation rights. (Source: p.6, col.II, para. 6, lines 4 & 5, Census Bureau P-60, #173, Sept 1991.)

• "40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the non-custodial father's visitation on at least one occasion, to punish the ex-spouse." (Source: p. 449, col. II, lines 3-6, (citing Fulton) Frequency of visitation by Divorced Fathers; Differences in Reports by Fathers and Mothers. Sanford Braver et al, Am. J. of Orthopsychiatry, 1991.)

• "Overall, approximately 50% of mothers "see no value in the father`s continued contact with his children...." (Source: Surviving the Breakup, Joan Kelly & Judith Wallerstein, p. 125)

• Only 11% of mothers value their husband's input when it comes to handling problems with their kids. Teachers & doctors rated 45%, and close friends & relatives rated 16%.(Source: EDK Associates survey of 500 women for Redbook Magazine. Redbook, November 1994, p. 36)

• "The former spouse (mother) was the greatest obstacle to having more frequent contact with the children." (Source: Increasing our understanding of fathers who have infrequent contact with their children, James Dudley, Family Relations, Vol. 4, p. 281, July 1991.)

• "A clear majority (70%) of fathers felt that they had too little time with their children." (Source: Visitation and the Noncustodial Father, Mary Ann Kock & Carol Lowery, Journal of Divorce, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 54, Winter 1984.)

• "Very few of the children were satisfied with the amount of contact with their fathers, after divorce." (Source: Visitation and the Noncustodial Father, Koch & Lowery, Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 50, Winter 1984.)

• "Feelings of anger towards their former spouses hindered effective involvement on the part of fathers; angry mothers would sometimes sabotage father's efforts to visit their children." (Source: Ahrons and Miller, Am. Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 63. p. 442, July `93.)

• "Mothers may prevent visits to retaliate against fathers for problems in their marital or post-marital relationship." (Source: Seltzer, Shaeffer & Charing, Journal of Marriage & the Family, Vol. 51, p. 1015, November 1989.)

• In a study: "Visitational Interference - A National Study" by Ms. J Annette Vanini, M.S.W. and Edward Nichols, M.S.W., it was found that 77% of non-custodial fathers are NOT able to "visit" their children, as ordered by the court, as a result of "visitation interference" perpetuated by the custodial parent. In other words, non-compliance with court ordered visitation is three times the problem of non-compliance with court ordered child support and impacts the children of divorce even more. Originally published Sept. 1992

________________________________________

Child Support

• Information from multiple sources shows that only 10% of all noncustodial fathers fit the "deadbeat dad" category: 90% of the fathers with joint custody paid the support due. Fathers with visitation rights pay 79.1%; and 44.5% of those with NO visitation rights still financially support their children. (Source: Census Bureau report. Series P-23, No. 173).

• Additionally, of those not paying support, 66% are not doing so because they lack the financial resources to pay (Source: GAO report: GAO/HRD-92-39 FS).

• The Poverty Studies Institute at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, discovered in 1993 that 52% of fathers who owe child support earn less than $6,155 per year.

• 66% of single mothers work less than full time while only 10% of fathers fall into this category. In addition, almost 47% of non-custodial mothers default on support compared with the 27% of fathers who default. (Source: Garansky and Meyer, DHHS Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, 1991).

• Total Custodial Mothers: 11,268,000. Total Custodial Fathers 2,907,000 (Source: Current Population Reports, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Series P-20, No. 458, 1991).

• 66% of all support not paid by non-custodial fathers is due to inability to pay. (Source: U.S. General Accounting Office Report, GAO/HRD-92-39FS January 1992).

The following is sourced from: Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Income Security Policy, Oct. 1991, Authors: Meyer and Garansky.

• Custodial mothers who receive a support award: 79.6%

• Custodial fathers who receive a support award: 29.9%

• Non-custodial mothers who totally default on support: 46.9%

• Non-custodial fathers who totally default on support: 26.9%

________________________________________

More Risk Statistics -- Children with only one parent in their lives

Youth Suicide and Divorce/ Single parent Homes:

• "In a study of 146 adolescent friends of 26 adolescent suicide victims, teens living in single-parent families are not only more likely to commit suicide but also more likely to suffer from psychological disorders, when compared to teens living in intact families." Source: David A. Brent, (et. al.) "Post-traumatic Stress Disorders in Peers of Adolescent Suicide Victims: Predisposing Factors and Phenomenology." Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 34 (1995): 209-215.

• "Fatherless children are at dramatically greater risk of suicide." Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, D.C., 1993.

• "Three out of four teenage suicides occur in households where a parent has been absent." Source: Jean Beth Eshtain, "Family Matters: The Plight of America's Children." The Christian Century (July 1993): 14-21.

• "A family structure index -- a composite index based on the annual rate of children involved in divorce and the percentage of families with children present that are female-headed - is a strong predictor of suicide among young adult and adolescent white males." Source: Patricia L. McCall and Kenneth C. Land, "Trends in White Male Adolescent, Young-Adult, and Elderly Suicide: Are There Common Underlying Structural Factors?" Social Science Research 23 (1994): 57-81

Chris Key's picture
Posted by Chris Key (not verified) on 7 June 2005 - 11:57pm
In Response to Pennywit

Pennywit Said: But that sort of reform requires thoughtful, reasoned, educated discussion of the issues. It requires an adherence to fact and a willingness to change laws without undercutting their purpose.

You offer none of that. Your posts here are neither thoughtful nor reasoned. Your "education" largely consists of cherry-picked, questionable statistiscs that are selected not for the purpose of discussion, but so you can scream them at the top of your lungs and assert that they justify your, quite frankly, mysognist agenda.

Is my little rant here reasoned? No. Was I thoughtful here? No. But then again, your tantrum demands outright, over-the-top mockery rather than reasoned debate.

Chris Key Says:

Actually my education is based on my knowledge of the law system, gender issues and psychology. The statistics I referred to are 100% substantiated and come from reliable sources. The reason that I made these posts was to discuss the various injustices that males endure due to the sexist laws that are found within the current system.

The reason why I didn’t discuss how the law system should be reformed is because in order to do so the other parties involved in this discussion would first need to acknowledge that males are oppressed by the law system; something that media girl nor yourself were willing to do.

No where did I state that the current laws should be altered so that they offer no protection to females; indicating that you placed words in my mouth. I would also like you to point out how my agenda is; ‘Misogynist� (a word that you couldn’t even spell correctly)?

The only people who resorted to throwing a tantrum were both media girl and yourself; I merely stated various facts which that are substantiated. For some reason both media girl and yourself were angered by the facts that I stated; resulting in you making a derogatory, unsubstantiated, juvenile and insulting post that resembled the response of a 13 year old.

Chris Key's picture
Posted by Chris Key (not verified) on 8 June 2005 - 12:45am
As you seem to be so disappointed

...that we are not giving gratifying dittohead responses to your rants, perhaps you'll consider going elsewhere, where your MRA vomit is lapped up more readily.

As you are either unwilling or unable to engage in any rational discourse, and thus feel the need to resort to crowing victory and denigrating everyone who doesn't cheer, maybe you should just move along and pester someone else. You can even whine about how the meanie media girl scolded you. Thus your victim mind is validated, and sanity and reality are restored to these web pages. What an Australian is doing bellyaching to American women about his own insecurities anyway, I have no idea.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 8 June 2005 - 12:55am
media girl said: As you are

media girl said: As you are either unwilling or unable to engage in any rational discourse, and thus feel the need to resort to crowing victory and denigrating everyone who doesn't cheer, maybe you should just move along and pester someone else.

Chris Key Says:

You really need to stop projecting as you have failed to engage in rational discourse; instead you resorted to making comments that are unsubstantiated, derogatory, insulting, and completely foreign to the subject at hand. The lack of integrity within your posts indicates that it is perhaps you who is unable to engage in rational discourse.

So far I have used factual evidence to substantiate my claims, while you have merely made sarcastic replies that have no basis to them at all. You cannot refute my claims because there is a wealth of factual evidence that substantiates my claims; which is why both you and Pennywit tried to *shame* me through the usage of juvenile insults.

I have refuted everything that Pennywit and yourself have said and it's blatantly obvious that neither of you like it one bit. I suggest that the two of you educate yourselves on the subject of gender issues; as it's blatantly obvious that the two of you know aboslutely NOTHING about the subject.

media girl said: You can even whine about how the meanie media girl scolded you. Thus your victim mind is validated, and sanity and reality are restored to these web pages. What an Australian is doing bellyaching to American women about his own insecurities anyway, I have no idea.

Chris Key:

Now you're beginning to act in a delusional manner and if you truly believe what you just said then you need psychological help.

Chris Key's picture
Posted by Chris Key (not verified) on 8 June 2005 - 1:39am
Postscript
No where did I state that the current laws should be altered so that they offer no protection to females; indicating that you placed words in my mouth. I would also like you to point out how my agenda is; ‘Misogynist� (a word that you couldn’t even spell correctly)?

Can I get back to you on this point? I'm catching up on "biography's" of "evil feminists."

I won't dignify your self-serving postscript too much, but I will comment generally about your tone and tactics. My comment here was an attempt to needle you and provoke you to anger, much as you attempted with your earlier comments.

If you're going to come onto Media Girl's blog and challenge her on the issue of men's rights, you need to do so with more art and precision than you have displayed here. Much like you, they don't appreciate vituperative insults or blanket assertions that they are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

I have found, for example, that Media Girl and her cohorts are quite reasonable when queried directly about specific points that they raise. Moreover, they appear to enjoy a good intellectual joust once in a while, especially when that joust is not with somebody who compiles biography's of evil feminists and rants about discrimination against men.

--|PW|--

pennywit's picture
Posted by pennywit on 8 June 2005 - 7:47am
Goad

Damn, Chris. You're incredibly easy to goad, aren't you? I wave a little flag in front of you, insult your manhood, and you come charging at me like a bull.

Nevertheless, you've coughed up a little bit of what I asked for, at ... ahem ... 5:57 in the morning. Do you ever sleep? But that's neither here nor there.

Let's get down to brass tacks, my friend.

First and foremost, I suggest you lay off the spelling and grammar flames. Reasonable people recognize that in this sort of informal forum, spelling and grammar take a back seat to informed debate and flame wars.

If I were inclined toward similar critiques, I might note the irony in receiving spelling flames from a person who keeps "biography's" of evil women on his Web site. And were I extremely pedantic, I might note that your response to me failed to preserve parallelism in the initial list (you use several adjectives, followed by a noun phrase). And about your lists, my friend, I think we've established that you're either a lawyer or you think you're a lawyer.

As far as I know, only lawyers posess your affection for long strings of adjectives. While I have some legal training, I generally eschew adjective strings, as they seldom impress anybody whose opinion I value.

Your entire claims are unsubstantiated, illogical, absurd, fallacious and just pure bigotry. For example you say; “male gender� when the correct term is; “male sex�, demonstrating you don’t even understand basic language skills, then you go ahead and make some outrageous claim that you’re speaking for the majority of males when in reality you’re only speaking for YOURSELF.

First off, buddy, I didn't offer any claims -- just caustic commentary, speculation, and insults to your manhood.

Second, Chris, you might find that "male gender" and "male sex" are interchangeable in colloquial conversation. See my note above about being overly pedantic in this particular forum.

And my claim that I'm a spokesman for my gender? A literary conceit, little man, and fairly effective, as my little stream of insults has provoked quite a reaction from you.

Are you so ignorant and narrow minded that you think any other man who has a differing opinion to you MUST be part of a minority of males? Throughout your poorly written article you NEVER wrote anything that was substantiated, truthful or even logical; instead you chose to resort to using pathetic insults and making unfounded generalisations.

Poorly written? I wouldn't say so. Considering the response I got from you -- precisely the response I expected -- I would say I wrote pretty darn well!

I'm going to ignore the rest of your insults about my ability debating skills, writing ability, faculties for reason, and general hygiene. As noted, I didn't try to debate you reasonably. I just set out to insult you and goad you ... and I succeeded beyond my wildest dreams.

As much fun as it is to speculate on the depth and girth of our respective ... analytical abilities, I'll skip over some of your return insults in favor of your more substantive responses to me. Note, I don't say "substantive." Merely "more substantive."

Ahem.

Your entire critique of me is that I make unsubstantiated claims without a shred of evidence to support me. However, your prior diatribe, and a great part of this diatribe, contain a similar flaw. Again and again, you assert your own conclusion as support for itself and demand that I do the same. Essentially, I'm supposed to argue that there is a problem involving violence against men because you say there is. Moreover, you initially presented your statistics as fact and expected them to be accepted as such without providing adequate documentation.

Even in the blogosphere, that sort of thing doesn't wash.

Then there's the issue of your misapplication of statistics.

Consider this:

The fact you believe my claims were in some way *offensive* and meaningful of *nothing* proves that when you’re confronted with evidence that does not support your beliefs; you resort to viewing them through an emotional standpoint rather than using a logical, scientific, unbiased standpoint; causing you to come to a conclusion that is illogical, irrational and just plain absurd.

For example, you have came to the conclusion that I must not consider violence against women to be a problem based on the fact I referred to substantiated evidence that proves violence against women is rare; however you discarded the fact that the reason I stated those statistics is because the woman known as *media girl* made a claim that there is an epidemic of male perpetrated violence against women.

Let me take these charges one at a time. First, I admit that Media Girl has, on occasion, dealt in a priori assumptions when she argues this issue. Were I a matchmaker, I would take this opportunity to introduce pot and kettle and wish them a happy life together.

Then there's my core argument against the specific statistics that I culled from your earlier comment. I called the statistics "offensive" not because they are offensive to women, but because they are an offense to thinking people in general.

If you're trying to demonstrate that rape is not as pervasive a crime as feminists claim it is, you can't just do so by saying, "well, only four percent of women are raped," as that particularly statistic doesn't really dispose of the contention that rape is a societal problem. It has the same methodological problem as the claim that "X in 10 women will be raped before she is of Y age." It doesn't really say anything about the frequency of rape in larger society.

Additionally, your citation of those particular statistics to prove that violence against women is rare doesn't wash. First off, the assertion that only a certain percentage of women are assaulted does not address the frequency of assaults against an individual woman. Second, the issue is not necessarily whether violence against women occurs only against a certain percentage of women, but whether the incidence of such violence is prevalent enough in comparison to other crimes that it merits special attention.

You do, however, provide this in your reply to me:

[T]his only demonstrates your ignorance and lack of understanding of the issue because various studies on all forms of crime have proven that rape is one of the least common crimes in society.

Bravo. You score a point. But that's only the initial question. The second question, my friend, is whether rape, even if it is rare compared to other crimes, is still prevalent enough to "shock the conscience" of an ordinary individual. AND, your assertion is vulnerable to the assertion that rape is also one of the most underreported crimes because of the social stigma associated with being a rape victim.

And, finally, the citations. You're continued insults (admittedly in response to my insults) aside, you've provided some citations. At the risk of being ad hominem about Dr. Honeycutt, I might also point out his assertions about John Kerry. Also, a quick Google search reveals that he is most often cited on men's right's sites, specifically for the statistic you bring up. I question his credentials as a disinterested observer.

I find the rest of your statistics quite interesting; to my mind, you can use them to build a persuasive case that children benefit from having a father who is active in their lives and provides positive input. You can also build a case, particularly in the divorce/custody statistics, that mothers in a divorce situation are hostile toward the fathers of their children.

As far as that point goes, you are correct -- and, I will concede, there is room for substantial change in the way that custody and child support are awarded in a divorce.

But to conflate these substantive, meritorious issues with a diatribe against women in general and feminists in particular is to do this case a disservice.

--|PW|--

pennywit's picture
Posted by pennywit on 8 June 2005 - 7:27am
....

Pennywit Said: Damn, Chris. You're incredibly easy to goad, aren't you? I wave a little flag in front of you, insult your manhood, and you come charging at me like a bull.

Chris Key Says: All that indicates is that you possess the mentality of an adolescent who thinks that the ability to *taunt* others in a manner that replicates the actions of an adolescent is some sort of achievement; demonstrating a juvenile mentality. Adults don’t bother to engage in such juvenile acts. What I have noticed is the vast majority of people who have their own blog sites are just incompetent and unintelligent misfits who are not intelligent enough to know how to create their own graphics and website; so they find a host that has a ready made blog site and they just write their insane ideas on there.

In other words, any idiot can own their own blog site; and there is nothing to be proud about having a blog site as it doesn’t demonstrate an understanding of web design.

Pennywit Said: Nevertheless, you've coughed up a little bit of what I asked for, at ... ahem ... 5:57 in the morning. Do you ever sleep? But that's neither here nor there.

Chris Key Says: That statement right there illustrates just how ignorant you truly are. If you had any common sense you would realise that there are MANY different time zones around the world, and I happen to live on the east coast of Australia. Considering that media girl claims to be an American female, that would mean she probably lives in North America; therefore the times that are displayed on the posts are reflective of the time zone that SHE lives in. The times that are displayed stay constant to the time zone of the owner of the blog site.

For your information I went to bed at 11:45pm last night and I haven’t been awake past the time of 2:00am since August 2004. So nice try at being a *smart arse* but I think you need to educate yourself on the subject of time zones before you make such a foolish comment.

Pennywit Said: First off, buddy, I didn't offer any claims -- just caustic commentary, speculation, and insults to your manhood.

Second, Chris, you might find that "male gender" and "male sex" are interchangeable in colloquial conversation. See my note above about being overly pedantic in this particular forum.

And my claim that I'm a spokesman for my gender? A literary conceit, little man, and fairly effective, as my little stream of insults has provoked quite a reaction from you.

Chris Key Says: Do you actually *pride* yourself on making posts that contain no substance or content other than personal insults that are meant to anger others? If so then that merely demonstrates a juvenile mentality.

Pennywit Said: Poorly written? I wouldn't say so. Considering the response I got from you -- precisely the response I expected -- I would say I wrote pretty darn well!

I'm going to ignore the rest of your insults about my ability debating skills, writing ability, faculties for reason, and general hygiene. As noted, I didn't try to debate you reasonably. I just set out to insult you and goad you ... and I succeeded beyond my wildest dreams.

Chris Key Said: The fact a person has the ability to write an article that contains nothing but pure unsubstantiated and insulting drivel does not equate to *good writing skills*. So far you have only made a fool out of yourself by acting like an uneducated and ignorant adolescent.

Pennywit Said: As much fun as it is to speculate on the depth and girth of our respective ... analytical abilities, I'll skip over some of your return insults in favor of your more substantive responses to me. Note, I don't say "substantive." Merely "more substantive."

Ahem.

Chris Key Says: Considering you have displayed an inability to produce substantiated content and have not been able to refute a single thing that I have said; you are in no position to make a claim as what is which responses are *substantiated*. Based on your poorly designed blog site it is quite obvious that you know absolutely nothing about gender issues which can also be demonstrated by the fact you choose to make immature insults rather than well thought out responses.

I have factual evidence to prove that my claims are 100% correct, and all that evidence is on my website which is why I created my website. That way I no longer need to give out individual links, as all those links are placed on my website.

Pennywit Says: Your entire critique of me is that I make unsubstantiated claims without a shred of evidence to support me. However, your prior diatribe, and a great part of this diatribe, contain a similar flaw. Again and again, you assert your own conclusion as support for itself and demand that I do the same. Essentially, I'm supposed to argue that there is a problem involving violence against men because you say there is. Moreover, you initially presented your statistics as fact and expected them to be accepted as such without providing adequate documentation.

Chris Key Says: Again you make another fallacious accusation that can be refuted with ease. If you hadn’t noticed, on my website I have a long list of links to the various sources that contain information about gender issues; and they are reliable sources and they support the claims I have made. Considering I gave a link to my website, and considering my website contains a variety of links to substantiated and reliable sources; that means I did provide evidence to support my claims.

Pennywit Said: Even in the blogosphere, that sort of thing doesn't wash.

Then there's the issue of your misapplication of statistics.

Chris Key Says: The majority of persons within the *blogsphere* are uneducated simpletons who do not possess the intellect required to build a website; so they use a shitty template from a blogging host.

Pennywit Said: Let me take these charges one at a time. First, I admit that Media Girl has, on occasion, dealt in a priori assumptions when she argues this issue. Were I a matchmaker, I would take this opportunity to introduce pot and kettle and wish them a happy life together.

Chris Key Says: media girl sure is a hypocrite and so are you boy.

Pennywit Said: Then there's my core argument against the specific statistics that I culled from your earlier comment. I called the statistics "offensive" not because they are offensive to women, but because they are an offense to thinking people in general.

If you're trying to demonstrate that rape is not as pervasive a crime as feminists claim it is, you can't just do so by saying, "well, only four percent of women are raped," as that particularly statistic doesn't really dispose of the contention that rape is a societal problem. It has the same methodological problem as the claim that "X in 10 women will be raped before she is of Y age." It doesn't really say anything about the frequency of rape in larger society.

Chris Key Says: Again you have demonstrated that you are incapable of understanding how statistics are to be interpreted. A *thinking person* would realise that when less than 1% of females are victims of rape; that means there is NO epidemic of rape out there; meaning that the hysteria the feminists have generated around the issue is merely their way of gaining attention. Of course there are a small amount of women who are victims of rape; however there are more than enough laws out there required to protect the female population and bring the rapists to justice. Considering that less than 1% of females are raped; that would mean that the chances of a female being raped are pretty close to naught.

A societal problem is one that affects a large percentage of the population; and less than 1% is not a large percentage of the population. Considering that around 40-60% of rape accusations are PROVEN to be false; this merely illustrates that rape is an extremely rare crime and that the hysteria feminists have produced is encouraging females to make false accusations of rape in order to cover up their promiscuous behaviour.

In fact it would be fair to say that the fact 40-60% of rape accusations are proven to be false is a more troublesome issue; as it illustrates the fact that females are learning to engage in such deceptive and vindictive behaviour without caring about how implications it can have on other people.

Pennywit Says: Additionally, your citation of those particular statistics to prove that violence against women is rare doesn't wash. First off, the assertion that only a certain percentage of women are assaulted does not address the frequency of assaults against an individual woman.

Chris Key Said: Again you have made an illogical and absurd statement. Considering there is such wide spread help available to women who are victims of rape; that means if a woman is a victim or rape on numerous occasions then it suggests that she is willingly placing herself in dangerous situations where she is very likely to be raped; meaning her irresponsible and unintelligent decisions are the reason for her misfortunes.

If a person refuses to act in a responsible manner and realise that all choices have consequences then that makes them a simpleton and a parasite; as they expect everyone to come running to their aid after they chose to engage in behaviour that they very well know is dangerous. Therefore the question must be asked; why are females continuously making such poor and irresponsible choices in life?

Unfortunately a great deal of women in this world would rather be a *victim* than act in a responsible and careful manner and that is most likely the source of the problem. Therefore the societal issue is the fact that females are continuously making poor choices; and that is something only that laws and financial funding CANNOT sort out.

Source: http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume6/j6_2_...

Pennywit Says: Second, the issue is not necessarily whether violence against women occurs only against a certain percentage of women, but whether the incidence of such violence is prevalent enough in comparison to other crimes that it merits special attention.

Bravo. You score a point. But that's only the initial question. The second question, my friend, is whether rape, even if it is rare compared to other crimes, is still prevalent enough to "shock the conscience" of an ordinary individual. AND, your assertion is vulnerable to the assertion that rape is also one of the most underreported crimes because of the social stigma associated with being a rape victim.

Chris Key Says: Again you made an unsubstantiated comment that is based more on *emotion* rather than *fact*. The fact is 40-60% of rape accusations are proven false; therefore it is absurd to consider rape as being an underreported crime.

Source: http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume6/j6_2_...

Chris Key's picture
Posted by Chris Key (not verified) on 8 June 2005 - 6:50pm
Now I know you're NOT a lawyer

Tell me, Mister Science, how do you prove a negative? Where do you get this figure of 40-60% of rape accusations are false? Pointing to some editorial piece written by an amateur scientist 11 years ago is not evidence. It may get cheers from your misogyny clubs, but rational people prefer to get statistics. Can you offer any?

Here, I'll give you the URLS of the FBI and Dept. of Justice. Amuse me and pretend just a little bit that you live in the real world.

FBI

DOJ

Or you might look at the CDC ... but I warn you, the facts won't appeal to your delusional view of the world:

* The National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS) found that 1 in 6 U.S. women and 1 in 33 U.S. men has experienced an attempted or completed rape at some time in their lives (Tjaden and Thoennes, 2000).

* More than half of all rapes of females occur before age 18; of those, 22% occur before age 12 (Tjaden and Thoennes, 2000).

* According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) more than 260,000 rapes or sexual assaults occurred in 2000; 246,180 of them occurred among females and 14,770, among males (Department of Justice, 2001).

* The National College Women Sexual Victimization Study estimated that between 1 in 4 and 1 in 5 college women experience completed or attempted rape during their college years (Fisher, Cullenand Turner, 2000).

* Fewer than half (48.1%) of all rapes and sexual assaults are reported to the police (DOJ, 2001).

* According to the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, a national survey of high school students, 7.7% of students had been forced to have sexual intercourse when they did not want to. Female students (10.3%) were significantly more likely than male students (5.1%) to have been forced to have sexual intercourse. Overall, black students were significantly more likely than white students (9.6% vs. 6.9%) to have been forced to have sexual intercourse (CDC, 2002).

Yeah ... facts. They just get in your way, don't they?

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 8 June 2005 - 7:18pm
A refutation of your claims.

Media Girl Said: Tell me, Mister Science, how do you prove a negative? Where do you get this figure of 40-60% of rape accusations are false? Pointing to some editorial piece written by an amateur scientist 11 years ago is not evidence. It may get cheers from your misogyny clubs, but rational people prefer to get statistics. Can you offer any?

Chris Key Says: Actually it was a scientific study that obtained its information through the interrogation of women who made accusations of being raped along with the findings found within the police reports from the police departments of two American cities; which verified that 60% of the rape accusations made were false. Considering that the police are the department who investigate all accusations of rape, their findings are most accurate as they:

(i) Perform a thorough investigation of all the physical evidence at the scene to determine whether it’s even possible for the accused to have been at the scene at the time of the incident was supposed to take place,

(ii) Along with extensive interrogation of the accused and the accuser to determine whether there are any flaws in their claims.

Now considering that the information supplied by the police department verified the findings from the interrogation of the accusers; that means the findings are 100% substantiated, conclusive and factual. The fact that the findings were verified by the findings of police reports is sufficient evidence that they are indeed reliable statistics. Therefore if you cannot understand that the information from the study is indeed statistical evidence then you must not have any idea of the meaning of “statistics�.

Media Girl: Here, I'll give you the URLS of the FBI and Dept. of Justice. Amuse me and pretend just a little bit that you live in the real world.

FBI

DOJ

Chris Key Says: I notice that you never actually linked to any documented study from the FBI or DOJ; instead you just linked to FRONT PAGES of their websites. The information I gave actually came from the police reports of by various police departments along with the findings from the DOJ!!!!!

Media Girl Said: Or you might look at the CDC ... but I warn you, the facts won't appeal to your delusional view of the world:

Chris Key Says: The so called *facts* that you have cited come from unverified sources which are mostly based around a select group of people who were handpicked by various feminist organizations such as the NVAWS; who rely on the word of their subjects rather than performing an extensive investigation which analysis’s the physical evidence found at the scene. Let’s take a look at the statistics you gave and highlight the inconsistencies within them;

Media Girl Said: * The National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS) found that 1 in 6 U.S. women and 1 in 33 U.S. men has experienced an attempted or completed rape at some time in their lives (Tjaden and Thoennes, 2000).

Chris Key Says: Notice who the so called *facts* you gave merely came in the form of a *survey* and cannot be verified by police reports of any other physical evidence? In case you didn’t know, a *survey* does not prove anything at all as they merely relay the accusations made by the subjects, and an accusation has to be substantiated before it can be referred to as being substantiated and truthful.

Media Girl Said: * More than half of all rapes of females occur before age 18; of those, 22% occur before age 12 (Tjaden and Thoennes, 2000).

Chris Key Says: Again the statistics you cited came from a *SURVEY* and NOT an actual study.

Media Girl Said: * According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) more than 260,000 rapes or sexual assaults occurred in 2000; 246,180 of them occurred among females and 14,770, among males (Department of Justice, 2001).

Chris Key Says: That lot of statistics only prove that less than 1% of females are the victims of rape due to the following:

(i) It says that 246,180 females were the victims of rape in 2000,

(ii) The population of the USA in the year 2000 was 276,059,000 with 143,550,680 of them being female.

(iii) Therefore in the year 2000 there were 143,550,680 females living in the USA, and only 246,180 of those females were the victims of rape; meaning only 0.171% of females living in the USA were raped in the year 2000.

This also refutes the claim that 1 in 6 women in the USA have been the victims of rape or attempted rape; as the statistics from the DOJ include all incidents of attempted rape in their reports on rape.

Media Girl Said: * The National College Women Sexual Victimization Study estimated that between 1 in 4 and 1 in 5 college women experience completed or attempted rape during their college years (Fisher, Cullenand Turner, 2000).

Chris Key Says: Again you refer to a *survey* that has NEVER been verified as there is no evidence to substantiate the claim.

Media Girl Said: * Fewer than half (48.1%) of all rapes and sexual assaults are reported to the police (DOJ, 2001).

Chris Key Says: It is mighty difficult to understand the percentage of rapes that go unreported as it’s impossible for anyone to know that a rape occurred when it goes unreported.

Media Girl Said: * According to the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, a national survey of high school students, 7.7% of students had been forced to have sexual intercourse when they did not want to. Female students (10.3%) were significantly more likely than male students (5.1%) to have been forced to have sexual intercourse. Overall, black students were significantly more likely than white students (9.6% vs. 6.9%) to have been forced to have sexual intercourse (CDC, 2002).

Chris Key Says: Again you refer to an unsubstantiated survey that contains information that has not been verified through any form of investigation.

Media Girl Said: Yeah ... facts. They just get in your way, don't they?

Chris Key Says: As you have just seen the so called *facts* that you gave are unsubstantiated and contradictory to each other as;

(i) The majority of them are merely the findings from the various surveys produced by the NCWVS and NVAWS; which are feminist organisations.

(ii) The statistics you cited from the DOJ refuted the claims made by the NCWVS/NVAWS.

Once again you have made a fool out of yourself by publicly demonstrating your lack of knowledge on the subject of gender issues. Your actions are a clear indication that you live in a fantasy world and do not have a firm grasp of reality.

Chris Key's picture
Posted by Chris Key (not verified) on 9 June 2005 - 10:56pm
Sorry Chris

Your logic just doesn't hold up. You hold up speculation and projections as facts, and then deny the facts offered by the CDC, FBI and DOJ. (Oh, and sorry you're not up to doing your own research to support your own assertions. But you're going to have to carry your own water on that.)

But let's just say you're right, and only 246,000 women are raped each year. You don't think that's a problem? That's more people than the population of most cities. By even your ridiculously low pseudo-statistics, that's a million rapes happening in this country every presidential term. 2.5 million women and girls raped every 10 years.

You obviously don't have any daughters. (The way you behave, I'm wondering if any woman would be fool enough to get involved with you. Some say paranoia is hereditary; it's not an attractive pose, either.)

And then you ask us to believe your delusional notion that no rapes and attempted rapes go unreported to the police --- and that only the police would know about these things. That just shows how little you know about the subject ... or human nature, for that matter.

Why you're obsessing on proving your illogical foolishness here, I don't know, but frankly I'm bored. Keep thumping your chest, though, if it that's how you get your thrills. Still, I'd recommend you maybe turn off the computer and go out into the world and learn a thing or two about real life before you go telling the world how wrong everybody is.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 9 June 2005 - 11:53pm
The ignorance and illogic of this woman is on display once again

Media Girl Says: Your logic just doesn't hold up. You hold up speculation and projections as facts, and then deny the facts offered by the CDC, FBI and DOJ. (Oh, and sorry you're not up to doing your own research to support your own assertions. But you're going to have to carry your own water on that.)

Chris Key Says: Again you have demonstrated just how delusional and unintelligent you truly are; as the very statistics I was using came from the Department of Justice and FBI and I even provided a link back to those statistics. Seriously, are you just a compulsive liar or do you suffer from some form of mental illness?

You provided one set of statistics which claimed that 246,180 women were raped in the year 2000; that was a statistic that YOU provided, that’s right YOU provided it. Now in the year 2000 there was a total of 143,550,000 females living in the USA, and 246,180 is only 0.171% of 143,550,000; meaning only 0.171% of females living in the USA were raped in the year 2000.

So far you have demonstrated that:

(i) You do not know how to interpret statistics

(ii) Your mathematical skills are very poor

You claim that I deny the facts offered by the DOJ and FBI yet the statistics I am using to support my claims actually come from the DOJ and FBI!!!! Sorry but it’s quite obvious that you refuse to engage in rational discourse so you have chosen to using lies in *hope* that people will fall for your crap.

Well since you are trying *repress* the truth I will ask Angry Harry if he will be willing to place a copy of our conversations on HIS website; where you cannot delete them and they are available for ALL to see.

It’s blatantly obvious that you KNOW you’re wrong; which is why you delete anything that refutes your claims, and then you resort to making unfounded statements that are just purely insane.

Are you so uneducated and so unintelligent that you actually believe the fallacious tripe that you have said or are you just a fraudulent liar? Your claim I wasn’t able to perform my own research; yet I was able to obtain statistics from the DOJ and FBI therefore you are either a compulsive liar a delusional retard if you truly believe what you just said.

As for your logic well let’s have a look at it.

(i) You post a statistic from the DOJ that claims 246,000 women are raped in USA each year (which is less than 0.2% of the female population in USA), and I agree that the statistic is true in fact I even posted a study from the DOJ that was performed in 1995 which gave similar results; yet you claim I am denying the statistics from the DOJ. That right there shows just how erratic your thought process truly is.

(ii) You claim that over 1% of females are victims of rape; yet the very statistic you are relying on quite clearly shows that only 0.171% of females are raped each year!!!!!!!

(iii) You then refer to a list of statistics that were produced by the National Crime Victimisation Survey (a feminist organization) but were mentioned on the CDC website; yet you are now claiming that these so called *facts* were offered by the CDC. Just because the CDC listed the findings on their website doesn’t mean they were responsible for producing such findings. The fact that the findings stated they were from the National Victimisation Crime Survey is sufficient evidence that they were NOT produced by the CDC.

Media Girl Said: But let's just say you're right, and only 246,000 women are raped each year. You don't think that's a problem? That's more people than the population of most cities. By even your ridiculously low pseudo-statistics, that's a million rapes happening in this country every presidential term. 2.5 million women and girls raped every 10 years.

Chris Key Says: In order for a crime to be considered *problematic* it needs to be committed at a far higher frequency than the other forms of crime; which isn’t the case with rape. Burglary, vehicle theft, robbery, and assault are crimes that are committed at a far higher frequency than rape; therefore shouldn’t those crimes be considered more problematic than the crime of rape? The following report from the Department of Justice confirms that rape is no where near as common as burglary, vehicle theft, robbery or assault.

Here’s the source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cnscj.pdf

Media Girl Said: You obviously don't have any daughters. (The way you behave, I'm wondering if any woman would be fool enough to get involved with you. Some say paranoia is hereditary; it's not an attractive pose, either.)

Chris Key Says: Again you resort to making defamatory and slanderous comments because you cannot refute my claims. The fact is your actions are a clear demonstration that you possess a VERY paranoid, delusional and erratic mentality that seems to find it difficult to process information; leading to you make absurd and childish insults when you are in a debate with some one who knows far more than you.

The manner in which you act indicates that you are a hate-filled misandrist (and there sure is loads of evidence on your poorly designed blogsite that strengthens this claim as well).

Your arguments are just purely erratic as they lack a constant theory and they’re literally all over the place; demonstrating that you don’t have a damn clue about the subjects you talk about, and you most definitely don’t have any evidence to support your absurd claims so you try to *shame* and *intimidate* others by calling them a *misogynist* if they refuse to agree with your point of view.

Then when your claims are refuted you resort to deleting the posts so that other people cannot see that you lost the debate.

Media Girl Said: And then you ask us to believe your delusional notion that no rapes and attempted rapes go unreported to the police --- and that only the police would know about these things. That just shows how little you know about the subject ... or human nature, for that matter.

Chris Key Says: What you just stated is a defamatory and fallacious. I have never said that there aren’t any incidents of rape that go unreported; I merely stated that if a woman is raped and she refuses to report the crime then how are the police and other authorities supposed to know that such crimes were committed?

An unreported crime is a crime that is NOT reported to the authorities and therefore cannot be investigated or measured within any study; therefore how can you claim that there is a clear measurement of the total amount of unreported rapes?

If the police knew how many crimes of rape went unreported; then they wouldn’t be considered unreported crimes as *unreported* means the police were never made aware of the crimes. If a police officer KNOWS a crime took place, then it means the crime was REPORTED. There’s absolutely no logic to your statement at all; in fact your statement is just delusional and illogical.

Media Girl: Why you're obsessing on proving your illogical foolishness here, I don't know, but frankly I'm bored. Keep thumping your chest, though, if it that's how you get your thrills. Still, I'd recommend you maybe turn off the computer and go out into the world and learn a thing or two about real life before you go telling the world how wrong everybody is.

Chris Key: Again you resort to the acts of projection. You have quite clearly demonstrated that you know NOTHING about life in general and you know NOTHING about gender issues at all. It’s blatantly obvious that you’re not very successful in life which is why you resort to projecting your own faults and insecurities onto MALES.

Chris Key's picture
Posted by Chris Key (not verified) on 10 June 2005 - 5:18am
You seem to be under the mistaken assumption

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that if you make longer and longer run-on posts, you're somehow more convincing. All you've convinced anyone here of is that you really really really hate women. It's truly a wonder that you feel this need to justify it.

Grow up Chris. Get a life. And get it elsewhere. You've peed on the carpet here enough. You have been behaving like a troll, and I've tolerated you long enough. You have a website. Go pee in your own livingroom.

Good bye.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 10 June 2005 - 7:44am
......

media girl Said: Meanwhile, until you can pass legislation to keep all women in leg irons, you might want to ask what it is you're doing to provoke women into attacking your family jewels. I do not know a single woman who would do that without being seriously provoked.

Chris Key Says:

Throughout my life I have NEVER seen a male physically assault a female, however I have seen many females attempt to kick a male in the groin merely because; a) he made a joke she didn't like, b) said something she didn't like, c) wouldn't let her win during a game of handball, d) because she didn't like him.

In fact I know a lot of females who have threatened to kick other males in the groin if he didn't do exactly as she said.

If a female ever tried to physically assault me; I would defend myself by kicking her in the vulva.

Over at www.webshosts.com there are numerous photos of females kicking other females in the vulva (the females who were kicked were incapacitated from the severe pain); however I cannot remember seeing a photo of a male kicking a female in the vulva; demonstrating that your assumptions are unsubstantiated, ignorant and unfounded.

Chris Key's picture
Posted by Chris Key (not verified) on 7 June 2005 - 9:11pm
I've seen it

Your self-proclaimed expertise seems to be lacking.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 7 June 2005 - 9:53pm
....

Media girl said; "I've seen it

Your self-proclaimed expertise seems to be lacking.

Posted by media girl on June 8, 2005 - 3:53am"

Chris Key Says;

I see that you're projecting once again.

Chris Key's picture
Posted by Chris Key (not verified) on 8 June 2005 - 12:22am
Put up or hush up. That's

Put up or hush up. That's all Chris is asking. You don't seem to be doing either. I'm not saying you must be quiet. I'm saying that it would be nice if you can tackle the epistemic burdern of showing why Chris' information is incorrect. Your mere conjecture "it seems to be lacking" refutes nothing.

Drew J's picture
Posted by Drew J (not verified) on 8 June 2005 - 2:10am
In case you haven't noticed

This is my site. I bet you just hate that you can't tell a woman to "hush up"! If you don't like what I write, then go away. I won't try to stop you. I promise!

If you really wanted to learn something, you could start by reading some of the posts here. Maybe you might do a search here on "rape." When some guy with misogynist attitudes starts blathering about fewer than 1% of women are raped, well, it's quite obvious that he's a kook. Right up there with claims that the Holocaust was a hoax and Apollo 11 really landed in Arizona.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 8 June 2005 - 2:16am
Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance

media girl Said: "When some guy with misogynist attitudes starts blathering about fewer than 1% of women are raped, well, it's quite obvious that he's a kook."

Chris Key Says:

According to the USA Government Census Website, there were a total of 263,909,000 people living in the USA during the month of December, 1995. Now considering 52% of the population happen to be female; that would mean there were a total of 137,232,680 females living in the USA that year. Since 354,670 women were raped during the year 1995; that would mean only 0.258% of the female population were raped, a VERY small figure.

Sources:

http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/1990s/nat-to...

And

http://www.paralumun.com/issuesrapestats.htm

As you can see I have used factual evidence to refute your claim and once again you have made a fool out of yourself. Again, you resorted to making a lousy and unfounded insult; yet I was able to use factual evidence to prove that what I said is correct and what you said is wrong. Therefore you can make as many insults as you want; they only demonstrate your ignorance and immaturity. Like I said, you need to educate yourself on these the subject of gender issues before you make such unfounded and fallacious claims.

Chris Key's picture
Posted by Chris Key (not verified) on 8 June 2005 - 5:20am
Babbling nonsense

I see that you're good with the cut-and-paste technique -- you've managed to repeat yourself so many times, probably because you can't think of anything else to say. I suppose I could google some 10-word phrases from your posts and come up with dozens of sites, couldn't I?

I especially love that if I were raped last year, that means I'd no longer be a rape victim this year! I suppose this means that if a woman is raped on New Year's Eve, all the rapist has to do is elude the law for a few hours -- on New Year's Day, he's no longer a rapist!

Since you've been playing your mental masturbation all over my pages -- keep it up and you'll go blind, you know! -- I see in the statistics that your, ahem, highly "intellectual" forum is called "Women / Ameriskanks (mostly) Suck Forum."

Yeah, that sounds really intellectual.

What is it you want me to suck, my Aussie bad boy? Don't the girls there talk to you? Do you need a woman to, um, admire your superior intellect?

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 8 June 2005 - 9:17am
It's Fun Talking With Uneducated Men/Women

Notice how the uneducated and ignorant woman cannot refute the arguments so she resorts to making personal insults and diverting attention away from the subject? The uneducated and ignorant male who defended her yesterday demonstrated that he was unable to refute my claims so he resorted to using personal insults and trying to divert attention away from the subject.

In all fairness I must say that both Pennywit and media girl are the most unintelligent and uneducated persons I have ever met; as they're so ignorant and uncouth. Not only do they know absolutely nothing about gender issues, but one of them cannot even spell the word *misogynist* and it's quite apparent that both of them are unaware of the true meaning of the word and how it is to be interpreted.

They have also demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of how statistics are to be interpreted, and they both make the most poorly formed and illogical arguments imaginable.

What is amazing is how Pennywit chose to take my statements out of context and IGNORING the true meaning of my statements; demonstrating he very well knew that he could not refute my claims. I even gave citations that proved his claims were 100% fallacious and he knew he couldn't refute what I said, which is why he resorted to acting like an immature 14 year old spoilt adolescent who lacks etiquette. He was never able to refute a single thing that I said; as all he was able to do was make absurd generalisations that were unsubstantiated; he didn’t prove anything at all.

To be honest it was quite fun refuting the absurd claims that Pennywit made, and hopefully he will educate himself on the subject of gender issues before he states such illogical tripe.

There are 14 year olds who can hold better arguments than Pennywit and media girl.

Chris Key's picture
Posted by Chris Key (not verified) on 8 June 2005 - 5:30pm
Thank you!

Coming from you, I consider that a high compliment!

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 8 June 2005 - 7:21pm
Chutzpah
Not only do they know absolutely nothing about gender issues, but one of them cannot even spell the word *misogynist* and it's quite apparent that both of them are unaware of the true meaning of the word and how it is to be interpreted.

Well, you certainly don't lack for chutzpah. How are those "biography's coming?

If we're a bunch of uncouth fourteen-year-olds and the blogosphere is full of simpering morons, please, by all means, head back for your "no girla allowed" clubouse and stop bugging the rest of us.

--|PW|--

pennywit's picture
Posted by pennywit on 8 June 2005 - 8:36pm
When she's wrong, she tries to repress those who are right

Notice how media girl took down the post which gave definitive evidence that less than 1% of females in the USA have been the victims of rape? Just another example of how feminists wish to censor anyone who is able to refute the various claims that are made by feminists. Obviously she must have realised that she was defeated in the argument; otherwise she wouldn't have taken the post down.

I may not be coming back to this site as it's blatantly obvious the people here are far too uneducated, ignorant, immature and immoral to engage in rational discourse. Anyway I have had my fun in refuting all the claims that were made by media girl and her weak, uneducated and ignorant friends. I have proven everything that I have said, and all they were able to do is resort to making unfounded generalisations and immature insults.

For those who wish to view the evidence, here it is;

media girl Said: "When some guy with misogynist attitudes starts blathering about fewer than 1% of women are raped, well, it's quite obvious that he's a kook."

Chris Key Says:

According to the USA Government Census Website, there were a total of 263,909,000 people living in the USA during the month of December, 1995. Now considering 52% of the population happen to be female; that would mean there were a total of 137,232,680 females living in the USA that year. Since 354,670 women were raped during the year 1995; that would mean only 0.258% of the female population were raped, a VERY small figure.

Sources:

http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/1990s/nat-to...

And

http://www.paralumun.com/issuesrapestats.htm

As you can see I have used factual evidence to refute your claim and once again you have made a fool out of yourself. Again, you resorted to making a lousy and unfounded insult; yet I was able to use factual evidence to prove that what I said is correct and what you said is wrong. Therefore you can make as many insults as you want; they only demonstrate your ignorance and immaturity. Like I said, you need to educate yourself on these the subject of gender issues before you make such unfounded and fallacious claims.

Chris Key's picture
Posted by Chris Key (not verified) on 9 June 2005 - 4:45am
What have you seen?

Media Girl Said: I've seen it

Your self-proclaimed expertise seems to be lacking.

Chris Key Says: What are you referring to? If you're referring to my website than your argument is fallacious and if you're referring to vulva kicking than your comment is fallacious. There is scientific evidence that being kicked in the vulva is as painful as being kicked in the testicles; and there are many documented cases in which females who were kicked in the vulva were incapacitated just like males have been after being kicked in the groin.

There are video clips on the internet which show females being kicked in the vulva during sporting matches such as football games or karate; and they all were incapacitated by the extreme pain and some of them had to carried off the field on a stretcher.

I have seen females get kicked in the vulva and they were all incapacitated from the pain. Therefore if you're trying to deny this then that would make you a delusional, uneducated and ignorant simpleton.

Chris Key's picture
Posted by Chris Key (not verified) on 10 June 2005 - 5:43am
hurts

It's true.sever incapacitating pain!Been in the fetal position in agony myself after a hit!!

MissBehavin's picture
Posted by MissBehavin (not verified) on 7 July 2005 - 6:40pm
Methinks thou dost protest too much

Maybe, since you seem to feel that men are oppressed by women worldwide, you'd be for the ERA.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 7 June 2005 - 9:41pm
I think...

This site is a accident waiting to happen. Women need to know what they should talk about and what they cannot. So what if there was an ad somewhere SCATTERED on the web that portrays women in a bad light. I can go to any porn site on the web and see that. The women in that ad are just trying to make money and that is the only way they can think to unless they screw some guy over by marrying him for his money then getting most of it in the divorce.

The Squall of Niceguy's picture
Posted by The Squall of Niceguy (not verified) on 8 June 2005 - 5:04pm
From my own perspective, I

From my own perspective, I think you're mostly right. And I'm the last person to tell young women blessed with sex appeal that they cannot or should not use it. Put them in business suits and plop them into a meeting and nobody would take them seriously anyway. Why? Because men in general have a hard time taking any beautiful woman seriously. Another unfortunate fact in the business world.

But again, this whole to-do was not about the ad but about Kos and the boys totally dissing women, feminism and so-called women's issues in a very snide and sanctimonious way -- all in a context of some clear anti-feminist rhetoric and attitudes emerging here and there over the past several months. Heck, right before I joined DKos in November there'd been a big row over how the featured bloggers -- selected "on merit," of course -- were nearly all men, and yet declared "diverse."

Anyway, it's too much to get into here. You might Google up the topic, or follow some of the links in the last few blog posts. Others are able to offer more insight. I'm a sporadic Kossack at best anyway.

BTW, what is it you mean by your first sentence anyway?

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 8 June 2005 - 5:23pm
Jeez.

Maybe you two should just cut the foreplay and just fuck each other.

Y'know you want too.

HAHA!

Analog Worms's picture
Posted by Analog Worms (not verified) on 7 June 2005 - 10:15pm
Tell you what

You can take my place. I could never match your enthusiasm. HAHA!

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 7 June 2005 - 10:50pm
Awww.... You're just being

Awww.... You're just being shy.

I'm sure chris will be gentle with you.

HAHA!

Analog Worms's picture
Posted by Analog Worms (not verified) on 7 June 2005 - 10:58pm
Thanks for the round-up

Thanks for the round-up mediagirl. The last quote by wakingup is priceless.

Jenny's picture
Posted by Jenny (not verified) on 8 June 2005 - 1:48am
I love this post. I was

I love this post. I was wondering if anyone saw

Rebecca's reply to Ed Lorenz of the Centrist.org who attempted to e-mail her about what she should talk about and how?

I'm sick of men who think we need them to tell us how to speak.

http://sexandpoliticsandscreedsandattitude.blogspo...

Maria's picture
Posted by Maria (not verified) on 8 June 2005 - 2:43pm
About halfway through this

About halfway through this thread I was like "why are we giving this embarassing doofus troll so much bandwidth"... two thirds of the way through, I felt that maybe he was at least a good abject lesson/example in embarassing blowhard guys who need to get a job or find a new hobby...

But now I just think his pavlovian responses to these affronteries to his manhood are kinda funny.

C'mon pennywit...poke him again...i'll make the popcorn...

odum's picture
Posted by odum on 8 June 2005 - 3:31pm
My work is done

Naaa ... I'll not poke him again. I've had my sport and made my point, I think. Besides, I've neglected my own blog for the last day or two. Time for me to scuttle back to my own digital digs. Where, of course, any of you are welcome; and don't mind Bat One. He's mean to everybody.

--|PW|--

pennywit's picture
Posted by pennywit on 9 June 2005 - 6:25am
Where Credit Is Due

After Seeing your trackback I gave you a link. Some of the links in my post were found in your post. Should have gave you a link sooner. My bad.

Michael Hussey's picture
Posted by Michael Hussey (not verified) on 9 June 2005 - 6:48pm
LOL

I thought the double-reverse silent trackback thing was kinda cute, actually.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 9 June 2005 - 9:41pm
Um kay...

So what this is, is pennywit and Media girl kissing each other's butts over the other ones lying ability? Damn do women need to get a life....

And figure out who is behind feminism already and that they care not for women. Women are sooo gullible.

jtest28's picture
Posted by jtest28 (not verified) on 10 June 2005 - 2:29am
Fairness or lack thereof

Lacking towards me. I said a bit more than what you say I said.

And, to tell you the truth, I did not say bullshit to the comment you say I said bullshit to.

But no matter, high fives all around.

Armando's picture
Posted by Armando (not verified) on 10 June 2005 - 3:15am
No, you said it to everything

Your opinion was quite clear, as always. But you're welcome to clarify, if you like. The message over at DKos has been pretty consistent:

"Shut up about this already!"

Maybe it's only a few people, but it's pretty consistent.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 10 June 2005 - 7:48am