Cathy Young ambushed on TV by feminists

Cathy, et al., I hope would have known by now. Arguing with feminists always turns into a screeching attack on anyone trying to approach issues from a reasonable point of view. Feminists operate out of emotion, principally anger, then secondarily, fear. They fear men, and fear being exposed as liars about men, women, and a lot of other things. But their fears have already been realized and they know it, so they rely on their anger to try to shut down debate. The Nazis used to use the same tactic: Just start screaming at your opponent and eventually, they stop trying to debate you. Then, you've "won" in the sense you've shut them up.

The thing to do is not to debate them. Take action to stop them. Did the Allies try to reason with the Nazis? No. They fought them, declaring early in their alliance that only total victory was acceptable (i.e., unconditional Axis surrender only would suffice: no cease-fires or conditional surrenders). The MRM needs to assume a similar attitude since we're dealing with the same kind of opponent. Like the Nazis' goals around eliminating any ethnic or political group they had no "use" for, the ultimate aim of feminism is the elimination of men. If that isn't possible, it's the reduction of men to a functionally "un-personed" status, without any significant rights to speak of. Getting the law and/or society at large to accept uncritically any accusation of misconduct by a female against a male is an important step on that path to de-person-hooding men. It starts with getting people to always accept, even in the face of clearly refuting evidence, that an accusation of sexual misconduct made by a woman against a man is always to be believed. Next, it's any act of misconduct. With that, there is no limit to the further stripping of rights and the personhood of men as a class. This is how the Nazis reduced many groups within Germany and the countries it conquered during WWII: eliminating the rights of members thereof to be presumed innocent when accused of some kind of crime. This clears the way for bills of attainder to be passed (supposedly, these are a no-no here in the US, but a few have managed to slip through on more than one occasion!), etc., and the slippery slope is quickly slid down.

Arguing with feminists is a total waste of time. MRAs and feminists have nothing to say to each other. Feminists simply must be stopped.

Today when we talk about "rape," we're typically not talking about a man with a gun who breaks into a woman's home and threatens to harm her if she doesn't have sex.

No, it's all about consent. If the woman consents to sex, it's not rape. If she doesn't, it is rape.

But what if she's lying when she says "yes"? Is it still rape? We're told that "no means no" and "yes means yes." But what if they don't?

I ask this because the Serta Sleeper woman apparently maintained a very friendly and even flirtatious relationship with her supposed "rapist"--because, according to these women, that's just what rape victims do. I think she even says "I love you." Apparently, that's a result of the trauma resulting from the rape. She didn't mean any of that, of course. It was the trauma speaking.

So that must leave a thinking man wondering: If a woman says "yes," does she really mean it? And if she doesn't really mean it, is it rape? In other words, is it rape if the woman lied when she said yes? If all this apparent flirtatiousness is not real, why should her "yes" be real? And how is a man to know the difference?

****my comment is "forbidden" so I am going to post it is chunks and see where the problem is:

I've read thru some comments on feminist sites and it is just shocking to me that no one gets that there just isn't enough evidence. Period. No matter what happened that night, and by not immediately reporting the incident, she sabotaged her whole case. If there even was a case. So I have no idea what feminist expect.

I also believe the definition of rape is too wide, and is impossible to distinguish in casual relationships where the so-called "rape" may just be a case of not getting the type of sex one expected. Reasonable people would chalk it up as "bad sex" but feminist have persuaded women to view it as rape - the worst crime ever.

What I think happened is Emma got anal sex when she was expecting only vaginal sex. (I think I read an article that suggested it started out vaginally, but then turned anal). This has happened to many loving committed couples as well. Usually the women just says, honey, please don't do that again, I didn't like it, and they go on with their lives just fine.

I think it is confusing or conflicting for feminist to celebrate (or even encourage) women to have casual hook ups, but then to place all the responsibility onto men to read her mind and know exactly what type of sex she wants, not just at the initial penetration but all the way thru the act (and sometimes even after the act, for example if he doesn't call afterwards, then all of a sudden it becomes "rape")

It's that accursed Drupal bug(s). I know you've seen http://news.mensactivism.org/?q=node/25240 because I've seen you use a dash in place of an 'a' when writing out the word h@ving (ha!), as in "h-ving", but at times it also gets annoyed at other things, like at times when I've tried to list things by using a single right parenthesis, as in: "Well, here's why I think that: 1{right paren} Blah blah blah, 2{right paren} Blah blah blah, etc." At those times, it can barf up, too.

I am close to deciding to migrate MANN off of Drupal to something else.