Here's the first one which was left on my post, Rape as a way to break reproductive monopoly & injustice against men:
If a starving person has nothing to eat and is on the verge of death, would it be in the best interest of that person to take the abundant food of another so as to sustain their life essence?That this man who defends sexual and reproductive violence calls me a "feminazi" for opposing the violence he defends is telling about his distorted view of the world. The types of opinions which come from those who use the term feminazi end up turning this into a shorthand way of them describing their own views.
If a childless person has no children and is on the verge of death, would it be in the best interest of that person to take the abundant reproductive capacity of another so as to sustain their life essence?
Would it be right?
Or are the hungry deserving of death.
And the childless deserving of the same?
The lack of human compassion is a trademark of psychopaths. Is it any wonder then that you are given the title of Feminazis.
This man uses gender neutral language, but I doubt he has the same compassion for a childless woman who takes a man's reproductive capacity and then takes his other resources to sustain her life essence.
Here's the next anonymous comment from last night left on my post The purpose of this blog:
So your life now revolves around victimhood? Perpetual and eternal. That's sad. You should move on. Life's too short. Yadda. Yadda. Yadda.This call for me to move on is a call for me to ignore sexual violence. Not wanting people to focus on sexual violence from the perspective of a survivor is in no way an opposition to victimhood.
Hope is not the antonym for abyss. If you dont have the hope already of overcomming your abyss you will never have closure. So i take it you aren't really after closure? Well then perpetual and eternal victimhood is all you will have. Thats sad. You should move on. Life's too short.
Revolving my life around victimhood (stopping it, that is) is bad, but apparently revolving your life around attacking victims of rape for speaking out against that violence is good and is never a waste of precious time.
When people demand that I stop speaking out against sexual violence and try to package their desired action as an expression of concern for me they have zero credibility as their callousness is impossible for them to hide.
Here's the next one left on my post Research On Response To Sexist Jokes And Rape Proclivity":
of course you would have no problem with the calls to exterminate malesI've never heard any calls to exterminate males except from those who claim to be repeating what they heard from many prominent feminists.
from many prominent female feminists. It is jokes, and sexist jokes at that
which raise serious issues about a joke tellers ethics. A feminists ethics? of
course not. Its never a two way street for them. Or is it.
Notably this man doesn't express any opposition to sexist jokes where women and/or girls are the butt of the jokes. He chooses to ignore the research about the relationship between men enjoying sexist jokes and having a proclivity to commit rape.
Here's the last in the series of last night's comments from Anonymous on my post Gender Non-specific Action vs Gender Equality:
current system gives more to boys and men and directly neglects or harms girls and women.Here's my response to this comment.
So you are saying that runnign water, sanitation, houses, food on shelves, police/security, education, THE CLOTHES ON YOUR BACK..... everything, everything around you that is the product of men is directly NEGLECTING OR HARMING GIRLS AND WOMEN! This whole "system" around you that is sustaining prosperous life is neglecting or harming women? You are insane.
It is interesting that you use "the product of men" to falsely remove women from the production of running water, sanitation, houses, food on the shelves, police/security, education, the clothes on your back, and everything around you that sustains prosperous life.
I won't call you insane for wanting to give men credit for everything you value, but you have chosen to distort reality. That distortion includes your decision to omit a key part of the quoted sentence I wrote in order to distort the meaning of that sentence. What you left out is my claim that MRAs often oppose equal resources when more is given to boys and men and when a system neglects or harms girls and women. In case you need it spelled out, that is not the same as saying everything favors boys and men and everything neglects or harms girls and women.
Twisting reality and then twisting my words and then calling me insane just makes you look like a foolish bigot.