The writer—Steve—starts off well by admitting that racism still exists. Good. It’s often easier for people arguing against affirmative action to simply deny that racism still exists. Steve has taken the honest and intelligent route, and wins my respect for this. So, onto the argument at hand. I need to address something immediately, which I’m aware of from a previous discussion with the writer. We disagree on whether or not people are capable of doing things for anything but selfish reasons. I don’t feel the need to mention all the things people do at costs to themselves—there are countless well-known examples. The issue is that while people may do charitable things at great costs to themselves, even risking their lives without a selfish thought, the reason these actions can be part of human nature is because they are, in general, helpful for passing on genes. So while the action may be selfish in the larger sense of gene transference, the person is not acting selfishly—and there are other influences on human behavior besides simply selfishness. With that said, let’s move on.

Racism isn’t beneficial to a business. A business that is open to minorities is much more likely to succeed. Some people just have the monetary padding to do such things. Sad, yes, but that’s all the potential that person has, unless they could have be changed on a personal level to be more accepting.

This statement is a gross simplification of the issue at hand. It assumes that the business owner, manager, whoever is doing the hiring is thinking clearly and objectively about how best to run the business. This could not be further from the truth. The power of racism is that it affects one’s thinking, drawing a person from objectivity and clear thinking. Racism overwrites the very reason Steve is counting on to counteract it. It is precisely it’s effect on reason that makes it so prevalent, that makes it so easy a method of destabilizing groups, that makes it so divisive. How many of us have prepared for an interview and read that the key is to get the interviewer to like you—especially by dressing like him/her—ie by making them feel like you are part of their “in” group and will “fit in”. Is it hard to see where racism might conflict? Whoever is hiring is not only affected by self-interest—to say otherwise is to assert that self-interest is the only driving factor in human psychology. Finally, Steve gives no basis for his statement that “a business open to minorities is much more likely to succeed”. While it opens the doors to a wider variety of talent, it also invites division within the ranks and the aversion of clients and allies. Even if it did, it has no bearing on the fact that the very existence of racism blinds the white hirer from any potential benefit a disliked ethnicity may have. The very nature of racism—and any in/out group discrimination—is that the hirer will focus on any faults of the discriminated group and any qualities of his/her own group.

Problems with something like a minorities-only college fund: This can let minorities get into a class that has a racist teacher, causing them to not pass, get a lower grade than they would have, or be in a generally bad environment (and maybe they decide college isn’t for them because of it). It teaches minorities how to be successful in the field of their choice, but once they get to that field, they might not be hired, or they might get hired but not get the same pay. It allows minorities to learn, but doesn’t guarantee comparably equal success.

I have to be honest, I’m really confused as to how this paragraph is meant to be an argument against affirmative action. It first claims that minority-only college funds can (might) let minorities into bad classes. I’m really not sure how a minority-only college fund is supposed to be worse for this than any other sort of college fund or even their own parent’s money, or how this is supposed to be different from the problems of every single college student (aside from minorities likely experiencing slightly more racism). It’s not really explained how this is at all a problem with affirmative action. The paragraph goes on to say that minority graduates may encounter the very problem he is arguing should be allowed—that minorities/women shouldn’t have a government guarantee of an equal amount of work provided they are qualified.

Problems with affirmative action driven job hiring: This can get a minority into a job despite the boss being a racist, but the boss is still a racist, and likely to look unfavorably on this person, especially now that the government forced them into their workplace. Some jobs may have openings but can’t accept “non-minorities”, which would fuel hate in the minds of some.

There are already programs in place to prevent and punish workplace discrimination, harassment, etc. No action will ever be perfect, but it’s a step in the right direction. Things will very slowly head in the direction of more minority/female presence in the workplace either way, which will fuel hatred no matter what. Either way, empowering individuals to defy stereotypes will do more to undo the damage that racism has done and do away with the hatred, than allowing the racism to keep minorities in stereotypes and hated anyway will do. One path leads to the same old, the other will eventually repair some of the damage and stop most of the hate.

This is why minorities are frustrated with the current social structure, and why non-minorities are frustrated with these programs.

I don’t know whether Steve’s a minority or not, and I’m not, so I won’t speak for minorities. I have to doubt that affirmative action frustrates most members of a minority, however.

I think if a minorities-only small business investment fund had been started instead of a college fund, they would have been integrated into society much more. Minorities that operate businesses could compete with racist ones, beating them (as long as they provide a better product; not any government-aided way to shove inferior products into the market for the sake of “equality”). You don’t need to go to college to know how to run a business, and sometimes you don’t even need to get through high school (I’m not recommending these routes, just saying it’s possible).

And how are minorities ever supposed to compete if they can’t afford or get into college in the first place? The entire point is to allow minorities to compete fairly, by being a little unfair for a while. While college and high school aren’t total absolute must-haves, we’re talking about competition, which requires more than knowing how to run a business. Nevermind that laissez-faire is well, not fair. Minorities should have access to college and education—the access whites and males have unfairly thanks to white and male privilege—just like anybody else. That’s the access they would have if racism hadn’t stunted their family’s financial growth for generations upon generations.

Even if a business fund wasn’t the answer, whatever the answer would be should have been a change catalyst, not something that is supposed to last forever.

That is exactly what affirmative action is. It’s not supposed to last forever—it’s supposed to fix the problem racism and white privilege caused.

Lastly, imagine the following: A country where every race is treated equally. Actually equally, in the sense that some businesses may have more non-minorities, but that’s okay, because other businesses make up for it (though, not with the intention of doing so). Suddenly, the government decides to give non-minorities a tax break, and give minorities more vacation days mandated by law. Now, no example is perfect, and you may see this as biased one way or another, but replace those two things with two different things of your choosing. Is it equal? On base value, it may appear so, but it is unfair treatment for both parties. Maybe some people aren’t interested in more vacation days, and a tax break may be more beneficial to certain people. It is not equal.

I have to be honest, this is a silly thing the reader is asked to consider. It doesn’t really make sense, and if it’s supposed to be a metaphor for the current situation it makes even less sense. Affirmative action doesn’t work this way at all.

Minorities wanting equal rights and opportunities are legitimate, good concerns. Non-minorities wanting the same thing are, too. Treating either one of these wishes as inferior ones only brings us further from our goal.

This is, again, a simplification of the issue. Neither wish is inherently inferior, but one of these wishes is almost laughable. I say this as a white American. As a white American, I, and most white Americans, have a large number of advantages simply by virtue of my coming from a white American background. Minorities in this country have a large number of disadvantages because of their background. Neither of these advantages and disadvantages are genetic, they are historical and cultural. White American families have had, over the years, most of the opportunities and little of the discrimination or baggage that minorities have had to deal with.

When there’s a race between friends and one was beaten prior to the game, and the other given steroids prior to the game, it is absurd for the steroid-user to complain of unfairness if the beaten opponent is given a tiny head start. We, as white Americans, need to admit to what our in-group has done and continues to do to minorities. Racism directly causes poor performance in discriminated against groups. How can we combat these things if we insist on forcing minorities to compete with a broken leg, before they can get to the next round and compete on a more even playing field?

Sources

1. American Psychological Association: Racism and Psychology.
2. Expectation confirmation, About.com.
3. Latent ability: Grades and test scores systematically underestimate the intellectual ability of negatively stereotyped students. Psychological Science, 20, 1132–1139.
4. Thin Ice: “Stereotype Threat” and Black College Students.

Oh, and bonus: apparently now, trying to stop what you think is an assault is now a criminal offense and a fail.

I actually got people defending the prosecution of the above group on Tumblr. Here was a response (edited slightly as it was in response to a specific person):

Should we not attack people assaulting victims now because, oh dear me, it might be illegal? Should people sit there and try to analyze whether the screams they are hearing are screams of pain and decide they’re not sure so they won’t do anything? If you hear screams of pain, think someone is being assaulted, do the best you can to stop that assault instead of sitting in your room and twiddling your fingers and being convinced that you either shouldn’t help the person being assaulted next door or that the police will somehow miraculously show up in time if you give them a call. If I was being assaulted I would want someone to stop the assault NOW please, not wait for police to take half an hour getting there and arriving when I’m either already dead or the assaulter has taken off.

P.S. You tired of hearing the words political and correct yet?

Political correctness, to many, is just that. It is elitist, acceptable, “correct” to not make racist jokes. To make a racist joke is to challenge the status quo, to bravely breach manners and etiquette and correctness. It is to be the maverick that the mainstream loves to se itself as. At the far end of the right wing, it’s standing up against those fascist liberals. But in reality, those who fight what they deride as “political correctness” are doing the very opposite. They are the status quo. They see themselves as defenders against an oppressive takeover of the public sphere. Yet all that is asked of them is that they not insult marginalized people. By their refusal to stop, they are demanding that marginalized people put up with more oppression.

Political correctness, real “political correctness”, demands an end to the continued marginalization of those peoples. It is not a matter of what is offensive, distasteful, or “correct”. Therein lies the major misunderstanding, even among those who advocate for political correctness. I don’t give a damn if something is offensive, distasteful, or what. It is not about that. It is about marginalized people, and not kicking them when we’ve already stabbed them, stolen their lunch, knocked them over, and punched their kids in the face a few times.

When people get upset and get sand up their neither regions over criticism of, gasp, themselves, that’s one thing. When people start standing up and demanding that they not be treated like animal mascots, butts of jokes, or nonexistent individuals, that’s something else. They are not asking for “correctness”. They are asking like everyone stop acting like they are not in the (figurative) room.

And you know what? We have a right to demand an end to a culture of marginalization, an end to rape culture, an end to celebrating indigenous genocide. And so on. This is not the same as demanding that someone change how they think, or act. But culture works through social pressure, and the only way we can change our culture is through exerting some.

Imperialism, in case you aren’t aware, is “he policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence”. [1] And yes, that makes pretty much any nation that has ever existed, imperialist. And that’s part of my point.

From the beginnings of U.S. history, settlers had their eyes on Indian territory, doing all they could to take it. [2] Once the nation was solidified, this became a slow march westward, which is now infamous. Yet we don’t ever really hear about the rest of America’s expansion, which happened to the north and south. This included the Mexican War, in which almost half of what was then Mexican territory became the American southwest. [3][4] And during the Spanish-American War, America began overseas territory acquisition.

Then we come to the myth of American isolationism during early global conflicts. While American people did not generally want to get involved, and our government avoided military conflict, we nevertheless extended our power and influence by covertly supporting our allies. Indeed, during the Russian Revolution we got involved as well, to save our own interests. [5] And of course, the Cold War. The very height of imperialism, in which we attempted to keep our control of the world against a just as imperialist enemy. America kept its control using aid, one of its favorite tactics, and military support and intervention. [6] And, of course, the threat of nuclear war. To name a few, several famous American wars were purely imperialist: the Korean War, the Lebanon Crisis, and the Vietnam War. [7]

Even today, America continues to be imperialist, using either direct military intervention or support to gain control. [8][9][13][14] It has quietly and covertly attempted to control the governments of other countries. [10][11] During the “War On Terror” even our country’s own people have been aware that its government has attempted to push pro-Western, pro-US ideals on other nations—and they’ve supported these actions.

Finally, the government itself admits it is imperialist, by definition, even if it doesn’t cal itself that. [12] The goal of American foreign policy is stated as working on "export controls, including nonproliferation of nuclear technology and nuclear hardware; measures to foster commercial intercourse with foreign nations and to safeguard American business abroad; International commodity agreements; international education; and protection of American citizens abroad and expatriation". Remember, imperialism is "the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence".

America has long made territory acquisitions and attempted to control other nations and areas. So please, conservatives. Accept the reality of your country. This or that act of imperialism might be justified, but denying the reality of your nation does no one any good.

Sources

1. http://goo.gl…
2. http://goo.gl…
3. http://goo.gl…
4. http://goo.gl…
5. http://goo.gl…
6. http://goo.gl…
7. http://goo.gl…
8. http://goo.gl…
9. http://goo.gl…
10.http://goo.gl…
11. http://goo.gl…
12. http://goo.gl…
13. http://goo.gl…
14. http://goo.gl…

Neat video, via Youtube: Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker.

If the discussion with rape advocate Eivind Berge proved to be good for anything, it was stirring my mind on the subject of female sexuality. It’s a subject that, even in this day and age, is both a mystery and a taboo. Even feminists cannot agree on what female sexuality is and what it should be, whether women should be sexually freed or sexually muted, whether they should embrace their sexuality or refuse to be sexual creatures.

I am hardly a wild, promiscuous thing, but I have for a long time leaned towards the former–the freeing of female sexuality.

Part of the problem is a lack of understanding. For so very long, female sexuality has been defined, sought after, and hidden by patriarchal society. Our sexuality is cast in a Madonna-whore dichotomy, mythicized, lied about, misinterpreted, treated as sin. The treatment has been almost universal. Even scientific attempts at understanding female sexuality have for the most part been male attempts, and not female attempts.

We are seeing the beginning of female scientific inquiry into the subject, however. Professor Meredith Chivers of Queens University, who proclaims that she "wants everyone to have better sex", has been studying female arousal. And she’s found some things that are both fascinating and disturbing. First, the fascinating:

No matter what their self-proclaimed sexual orientation, they showed, on the whole, strong and swift genital arousal when the screen offered men with men, women with women and women with men. They responded objectively much more to the exercising woman than to the strolling man, and their blood flow rose quickly — and markedly, though to a lesser degree than during all the human scenes except the footage of the ambling, strapping man — as they watched the apes. And with the women, especially the straight women, mind and genitals seemed scarcely to belong to the same person. The readings from the plethysmograph and the keypad weren’t in much accord. During shots of lesbian coupling, heterosexual women reported less excitement than their vaginas indicated; watching gay men, they reported a great deal less; and viewing heterosexual intercourse, they reported much more. Among the lesbian volunteers, the two readings converged when women appeared on the screen. But when the films featured only men, the lesbians reported less engagement than the plethysmograph recorded.

On the surface, it seems to confirm what men want to hear–that women who are telling them "no" don’t really mean it. And, you know–maybe it’s true. Male sexuality and desire is accepted, even revered. Sexuality in a woman—thanks to the Madonna-whore dichotomy—inches her towards “slut” if it appears to exist at all. Is it any wonder that despite being more easily aroused, women rarely admit to masturbation? However, let’s read on to Chiver’s theory for why women are so easily aroused physically but not mentally.

She has confronted clinical research reporting not only genital arousal but also the occasional occurrence of orgasm during sexual assault. And she has recalled her own experience as a therapist with victims who recounted these physical responses. She is familiar, as well, with the preliminary results of a laboratory study showing surges of vaginal blood flow as subjects listen to descriptions of rape scenes. So, in an attempt to understand arousal in the context of unwanted sex, Chivers, like a handful of other sexologists, has arrived at an evolutionary hypothesis that stresses the difference between reflexive sexual readiness and desire. Genital lubrication, she writes in her upcoming paper in Archives of Sexual Behavior, is necessary “to reduce discomfort, and the possibility of injury, during vaginal penetration. . . . Ancestral women who did not show an automatic vaginal response to sexual cues may have been more likely to experience injuries during unwanted vaginal penetration that resulted in illness, infertility or even death, and thus would be less likely to have passed on this trait to their offspring.” Evolution’s legacy, according to this theory, is that women are prone to lubricate, if only protectively, to hints of sex in their surroundings.

Clearly, we need to investigate female sexuality instead of having men tell us what it is. Because we are finding more and more that female sexuality is not what we were convinced for so long it was.

The finding above, however, makes sense, especially considering evolutionary psychology regarding the matter. In his book The Moral Animal, Robert Wright explains why females of almost every species are naturally more restrained in their sexuality than males: parental investment. Females, no matter how promiscuous they are, must invest a great deal into each offspring and can only produce so many offspring. Women can only have so many children, each child takes a long time to carry, leeches their health, risks their death when born, and requires a massive amount of time, effort, and resources to care for. Males only need to mate a lot to have good reproductive success. Thus, the sex who has to invest more and who has more risk when it comes to reproduction—females—is more selective and does not have sex with anyone. They select for whoever will both reduce the risk/investment, and make the risk/investment more worthwhile. This is the cause of hypergamy.

There are, however, a few fascinating things to note.

Primates, which are very similar to us in their minds and social organization, can organize sexually as monogamous, polygamous, polyandrous, promiscuous. Etc. Interestingly, however, is that in both primate and human societies, increased promiscuity correlates with increased gender equality. This is something I pointed out in my discussion with the rape advocate. And it makes sense.

Picture this. You’re in a society where you are barred from having a job, getting an education, or living on your own. If you are raped before you are married, you can consider your life over. In order to survive, you must marry. And the more wealthy a mate you marry, the better chances of survival you have. This is, essentially, how sex generally works in monogamous societies, primate and human. Females trade their sexuality to males for resources. Not because they’re greedy, but because it’s necessary.

Now, consider another scenario. You are living in a society where you are able to get an education and a job, at the same pay level and degree as a man. You are not culturally prodded into a Madonna-whore dichotomy. You are perfectly able to, and do, take care of yourself financially. Yet, you still want a mate—and now survival isn’t the driving force behind your choice. You can choose when you want, how many you want, and who you want, regardless of resources, because it’s not something you need any more.

Finally consider that in gender-equal human societies, contraception and abortion exist, which allow women to make that investment only when they choose, and engage their sexuality for reasons other than survival and reproduction. Gender-equal societies lend themselves to increased communal and father care of the offspring as well, which only makes gender equality even more conductive to promiscuity.

It’s a trend we’re seeing in more gender equal parts of the world, where women are free to be sexual and men don’t need to get married or spend money on a prostitute to get sex. Wealthy businesswomen are even sexually harassing their subordinates in the work place for the first time—something that clearly isn’t hypergamy.

In effect, while we’re still mostly monogamous (and will almost certainly always be), we’re becoming more promiscuous, which reduces the need to rape, promotes more honest sexual/marital couplings, and allows us to see more clearly what female sexuality really is.

We are a society in transition, however. Women are still held to the Madonna-whore dichotomy, even if they no longer live their lives by it. They feel guilt and shame for even being aroused—something which is incredibly sad when one considers how easy it is for women to be aroused.

And it may, it seems, be a violent transition. Misogyny and male entitlement is alive and well. Conservatism demands not only women’s bodies but dominion over them, and this clash has often meant rape, witch-burnings, destruction of pagan religions, and legal restrictions. Perhaps, the thought of relinquishing control over what men make a precious resource is frightening. But it is only precious because of the investment currently required by women in reproduction, and the lack of responsibility by men.

Despite the violence, despite the repression, the burnings, the laws, female sexuality exists and hopefully will always exist. Because of it’s preciousness, it has evolved to be unique, subtle, mysterious, enthralling. These qualities have made it something that has inspired art since the beginning of human culture, given rise to religions and even religion itself, evoked religious and spiritual emotions despite repression by those same religions, and lent itself to expression which transcends male sexual expression. Female sexuality, to sum it all up, is pretty damn cool. I’m finding myself fascinated in such an elusive and misunderstood subject. I’ll be reading in the near future a book on female sexuality and menstruation and how it might have affected the formation of early human society. I’m rather excited with what I might come away from it with, so hopefully we’ll be seeing some more posts on this subject in the future. Until next time…

Hey, look. Pro-rape advocate Eivind Berge finally sort-of responded to my entire argument against him. He ignored a lot, either outright or by simply writing it off because it was “silly”, but let’s take the time to respond.

Apparently Yvette Lessard still thinks she has good points that I haven’t answered in her blog post EIVIND BERGE: Pro-rape advocate & pals, so I am going to finish this here. See my comments at her blog for the rest and also here.

Oh, please. You even admitted you never addressed the entire argument. Several times. Here’s an example:

“Still holding to your claim that you don’t have enough time for the entire argument? You’ve made it clear you have it.” I don’t have time, and now I need to stop procrastinating. I might get back to it on Wednesday, though.

It took you a while to respond.

Yvette’s reading comprehension is rather poor. I never said only women can be raped. What I have said is only men can be rapists.

She also gets my definition of rape wrong. A victim must resist to the best of her (or his) ability unless she is credibly threatened with death or serious injury. Otherwise there is no rape.

Conceded, I missed that bit. However:

Having sex with an unconscious woman is not rape unless the rapist forcibly put her in that state with the purpose of accomplishing sex with her. It might be a lesser offense, though, depending on the circumstances. If, say, a man breaks into a woman’s house and finds her unconscious by chance, sex would be theft or abuse but not rape. If a woman willingly gets intoxicated and goes home with a man and he has his way with her while she is unable to resist, then there is no offense whatsoever and the man is completely innocent, doing what most men would do.

It’s rape if there’s no consent. You’ve provided zero reasoning, and the educated world disagrees with you. Most people in the developed world disagree with you. Burden of proof is on you.

So, Yvette strongly agrees that there are circumstances where rape is justified. Undeterred by any notion of cruel and unusual punishment, she blatantly states that I deserve rape merely for expressing my opinion. Well, I am saying women deserve rape for actual violence against men enforced by cops, so my case is much stronger than hers, though one might reasonably argue that both are reprehensible.

Justified? No. Hardly. I simply don’t view you as a human being, as you must view all women. It’s not because you’ve simply expressed your opinion. It’s because you wish rape on half of the people in the world because they benefit from a policy you disagree with. You wish rape on me? Yea, sorry buddy, but don’t whine when I wish it right back.

No, I state that women have the same value as men for any equal accomplishments unrelated to sex, but women have tremendous additional value as sex objects that men lack. This fundamental inequality is the crux of the matter and why rape is equality when everything else is equal.

You only refer to women in the context of what sexual value they have to you.

Um, no, of course I knew sex was a female resource long before I read Baumeister. That fact is painfully obvious to any man trying to get laid or any honest observer of what goes on in the real world. I merely cite Baumeister for the convenience of those living under a rock or brainwashed by feminist social constructionist boilerplate, such as yourself.

Bullshit. If your goal is to get laid and you do it by going to bars and clubs, you’re going to find one kind of women. Your anecdotal evidence is hardly enough to justify rape. Let’s discuss this when you hopefully address the fact that men have sexual value to women.

So what? I am able to think for myself and have my own opinion. And he did include a disclaimer because he must have known his argument combined with egalitarian thinking leads to the conclusion that rape is justified.

How do you not get this? You’re stating that the research inherently leads one to believe that rape is justified. Obviously it doesn’t, the one person who understands it best disagrees. So obviously it isn’t inherently in your favor.

I already answered how a woman might give up resistance and still legitimately consider herself raped (if such resistance most likely would get her killed or seriously injured). And how rape by drugs is possible if the drugs are administered against her will. The same definition of rape applies to children, and in fact even Norwegian law is not yet so corrupt that it considers it rape simply because a child’s innocence is taken advantage of. That would be considered sexual abuse but not rape if the child went along with it.

So an infant can’t be raped because they didn’t resist?

I do indeed think it’s impossible for a woman to rape a man. The double standard is quite real and based on biology.

All that is required for a woman to rape a man is a lack of consent on the man’s part. Forgetting for a moment that not all men are as desperate as you to have sex with this, I challenge you to actually prove that 100% of heterosexual men would sleep with any woman period. I remind you that you contradicted yourself repeatedly by stating that underage women are not good enough to have sex with. You’ve conveniently ignored it in your reply. You also conveniently forget my proof that many men complain about sexual advances by their bosses. It’s vastly in their favor to accept the sexual advances, since it helps their career and gets them free vagina.

And yes, sometimes “women desire sex of their own accord and without desire for a man’s wealth,” but they do so much less often than men with a much more limited number of partners. This profound difference is the problem, and a few loose women here and there do little to improve things for men.

Sometimes? Please. See above, that proof? Showed that it increases when women have wealth of their own. If sex really was all you cared about, you would be pushing for more equal opportunities and more equal wages for women so you’d have a better chance at finally getting laid. I guess sex isn’t all you care about then.

Sexual coercion is called for if we are to have equality — and equality was the feminists’ idea, remember?

You continue to operate under the bullshit idea that women don’t want men for sex, and ignoring any evidence to the contrary.

Nope, your definition of rape is only a very recent feminist corruption of justice, and even then it is most often not accepted by juries. Common law defined rape for hundreds of years as carnal knowledge of a woman, not one’s wife, by force and against her will.

Blacks were also defined as one third of a person for quite a long time. Simply because it was tradition doesn’t prove a thing, sorry bud.

However, that coercion can now be as mild as threatening to start a rumor about a woman, reporting her for a crime she has actually committed, or even a husband threatening divorce, so the Norwegian definition is now so corrupt that women deserve real rape for this alone, in my view.

So women deserve to be raped simply because you disagree with a legal definition? How does that follow at all?

No, it isn’t a social construct. Norway is now as close to an equal or matriarchal society as any known society ever was, and the same sex differences persist, as I posted evidence of recently.

That’s a laughable claim. As pointed out before, women are not in charge of Norwegian society. If having female advocates with political power makes a society a matriarchy in your view, you’ll be happy to admit that every other country in the world is unquestionably and has always unquestionably been a patriarchy, right? If you’ll admit that, surely you can see the need for opening up the patriarchy to allow women to have power, seeing as men have consistently blocked women from power. You deny that anything has ever kept women from gaining power except their own laziness, yet by your own definition you are wrong. I’ll point out some failed reasoning in your link, and maybe you’ll have the “time” to actually address the evidence in my posts showing differently.

The problem occurs, of course, when one actually bothers to read your link, which you claim shows that “women desire as few partners and little sex after as much courtship as ever”. It’s finding is:

We expected similar interest in long-term relationships, but that females seek short-term partners less than males. Furthermore, males were expected to have less restricted sociosexuality, fantasize more, take more initiative to sex and be less satisfied with frequency of sex. The predictions were supported in the evolutionarily-predicted directions.

Well, shit. All that proves is that women want long-term partners. Nobody is denying sexual differences. The problem is that you’re reading everything to justify your butthurt position, ignoring what women are telling you about their own sexuality, and that you’re grasping at straws. What little evidence you’re finding isn’t really proving your point that heterosexual women are inherently hypergamous and have no interest in men for anything but wealth. I’ve shown this isn’t true, and you’ve ignored it. I still have yet to see you address my evidence, but we’ll see if you do in the rest of your post. Moving on.

Cock is always disgusting to straight men and this isn’t a social construct.

Whoops. Psychologists disagree.

Unfortunately, most cocks are also disgusting to most women most of the time.

Yuck! Ew!

Ahem. Bullshit. Evidence, please. I wonder if you think female masturbation is a myth. Since we’re going with anecdotal evidence I suppose it’s alright if I simply reject this statement based on personal experience though?

I do not take sexual harassment seriously at all (it was invented by feminists as a tool to empower women and oppress men, criminalizing normal male behavior), and as I have made abundantly clear, women can never be “perps” in any kind of sex crime including forcible rape, because female sexuality is a good thing and any male recipient of a woman’s sexual attention is only lucky. However, if the system rewards allegations of sexual harassment and, absurdly, takes men accusing women seriously as well, then it is hardly surprising that some men will try to exploit the system. In any case, only feminists and morons take them seriously as victims. The rest of us see through the bullshit and understand that these men are not alleging harassment because they feel sexually victimized by women.

First and foremost: regardless of whether or not women can be perpetrators of sexual harassment, you are ignoring what this shows. It shows a trend in which women who are economically self-sufficient continue to desire sex and desire it of men of lower economic status of themselves, no less!

Second, I fail to see any evidence provided on your part for why sexual harassment shouldn’t be taken seriously, of course you don’t take it seriously, because it clashes with your worldview. Really, great argument there. You have not made it “abundantly clear”, you’ve provided no evidence that men will fully accept any sex from women. Making a statement and proving it are not the same thing, sorry to break it to you. How are you not getting that this is evidence which is contradictory to your unsupported claim? Seriously, how difficult is that? By the way, you’ve contradicted yourself. You know, again. You’ve already stated that women hate cock and don’t want sex, and reject it automatically unless it’s attached to someone who is wealthy. Yet here you are claiming that sexual harassment doesn’t exist! Pick an opinion and stick with it. Either women are capable of rejecting sex or they are not. I swear to god you have the most inconsistent worldview I’ve ever seen.

This is simply gibberish. Women do not try to use their power to get sex from men. They use their power to reject more men than ever, and this is the problem. Economic equality leads to sexual inequality.

I just provided you a link to proof that they do! You cannot simply reject it on the basis that it conflicts with your worldview. I suppose everyone’s just faking it, right?

As the Kennair study shows, we are not in a period of transition. Liberated women will use their power to reject men. Either women must be economically disempowered again so they have to get married, or sexual coercion is necessary. Otherwise there will be a lot of frustrated and dangerous men.

I’ve already debunked your use of this source. All your source proves is that women prefer longer-term relationships. I don’t see how it shows that we aren’t in a transitional stage. Not even a generation ago women had hardly any rights or power, now women are just starting to get it. We are still dealing with old, patriarchal culture, we have not transitioned to gender equality. As for your statement, it’s silly. Read below where I talk about marriage.

Taking wealth from men is worse than rape reproductively speaking for all the men becoming evolutionary dead ends as a result. And when equality is enforced at gunpoint by the police, it is also quite literally violence. Of course, the threat of violence usually suffices, but such a threat is also all the violence you need for rape. Even more so by the feminist definition, which requires no violence at all and any kind of threat will do no matter how light. You really get hoist by your own petard here. If you want rape to be so loosely defined and still call it “always violence,” then it doesn’t take much for affirmative action to amount to violence, either.

I’m sorry, but bureaucracy is not “enforced at gunpoint by the police”. Your exaggerations are ludicrous. And you know what? If you disagree with the law, vote against it. It isn’t violence to require schoolchildren to go to school, it is not violence to require business owners to not rape their employees.

Of course women have a sex drive, but it is normally very different than the male sex drive. The average man gets less sex as women get more money and power, because women prefer to reject betas and go for alphas when they are in a position to do so. I am not arguing in terms of absolutes, and admit exceptions, which is a concept you don’t seem to understand:

I’ve already shown you’re wrong, and you’re insulting my intelligence? Provide evidence for your rejection of my evidence and maybe you can talk. Never mind that in years passed women had to marry and could only be sexually available to those they were married to. Now, women don’t need to be married and can be sexually available to more than one person. I’ve already established that women want sex, I’ve given you proof of a trend that women who can be self-sufficient make sexual advances on men who are not economically advantageous for them to make advances on. Women are no longer forced to barter their bodies for the right to eat and have shelter, you are right. The difference which you ignore is that they are now able to have sex with who they like instead of just one person. You should be celebrating that. Again: women are hypergamous when, a) they have to be or b) their culture raises them to be. From birth girls are told by male-dominated media to marry princes, told by their parents to find a man with a good job, and you honestly think it has nothing to do with that? You’ve never heard of expectation confirmation? Those expectations still exist in every society even if they no longer are forced into meeting them. You’re bitching and crying because nobody likes you at the bar? Try 100 years ago when you’d have to marry a woman to have sex with her.

They put out less for men who are average and below, and that is where I am coming from.

Except I’ve already debunked this claim, and you’ve ignored it and kept on repeating it.

This is a complete non sequitur. Feminism takes away much of the leverage we had to obtain sex. You are either intellectually dishonest or very stupid if you think this gives men increased worth. We don’t like to pay for sex and would prefer not to, but receptive women are just such a scarce resource that we often have to. Feminism makes female sexuality even scarcer because women can afford to be pickier and never have to sell sex out of necessity. Only the most desirable men get more sex under feminism, but they always had easy access to women. Everyone else gets less.

Oh boo-hoo. I repeat: women who don’t have to marry to be able to eat are no longer forced to just sleep with one man and women who have higher economic power are able to sleep with whoever they want. I provided evidence, you disregarded it with no counter-evidence provided, simply because it conflicted with your pre-existing opinion.

The quote about Thornhill is a lie. For one thing, the sample size was 790, not 27.

You’re doing that thing again where you attack one part of an argument and assume the entire argument is debunked. That is not the only issue with the book.

The political sphere is not “overwhelmingly controlled by men” just because most senators are men. Whoever votes for these men has the power, and women are the majority of the electorate.

Because politicians are known for being of the people, right?

Sure smell is important, but the study you link to also confirms female hypergamy: “These findings support previous results showing that body odor is a critical signal in female mate choice (Herz & Cahill, 1997). Also in accord with previous studies (Buss; Buss; Buss and Landolt), women gave higher ratings than men did to variables related to status and resource potential and men gave higher ratings to good looks (Buss, D.M., 1989. Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12, pp. 1–49.). For men, the only factor to outrank good looks was the social factor, pleasantness.”

I’ve already addressed this. Things like smell, attractiveness, etc, are inherent and biological. Hypergamy is need-based, as in the evidence I provided which you wrote off without reasoning it it is reduced or disappeared when women are self-sufficient.

Eivind Berge, you quoted this but never actually addressed it beyond whether you’d take the cock.

Let’s get this straight: it’s not exactly a revelation that women’s bodies are traded for wealth. This is the general model for how society expects relationships to work. It is, however, just that: a model, a social construct. Male sexuality has no worth in society because those it is of no worth to those in power, ie men. Eivind, as a heterosexual male (aha! So that’s why his link specified heterosexual society) has no desire for cock. He is not willing to pay for it, or make any effort for it, and he would surely cry crocodile tears if it were forced upon him. Would he change his mind if the cock in question were attached to a wealthy business owner, and he were a single father in need of cash? Quite possibly. Does this mean Eivind’s only worth is as a sex object? After all, Eivind is just as capable of being valuable in other ways.

The problem of course is that your own primary source in your original “rape is equality” post shows that it is a model, it is a social construct. As I pointed out in my original post (and you’ve conveniently ignored this), the source”justifying” your sick beliefs said this:

A heterosexual community can be analyzed as a marketplace in which men seek to acquire sex from women by offering other resources in exchange. Societies will therefore define gender roles as if women are sellers and men buyers of sex.Societies will endow female sexuality, but not male sexuality, with value (as in virginity, fidelity, chastity).

Well, shit. Your own source disagrees with you about the cause of female hypergamy.

Eivind, you simply write off anything that disagrees with your worldview as feminist and thus inherently wrong. Such a stance shows how intellectually dishonest you are and how invested you are in defending your male privilege. To go so far as to deny that men have systematically controlled resources over the years and prevented female access to resources except through sex, and to instead pretend as if it is an inherently female thing when your own primary source states that it is not, is to be delusional. I encourage you to one day have the guts to actually present evidence for why my evidence is invalid aside from it’s conflicting with your worldview. I encourage you to consider the female sex drive and that, while usually different from a male’s, exists and is inherently attracted to aspects of men completely unrelated to their wealth. You’ve written this fact off, simply saying “there are exceptions” or wealth is the “primary” factor, yet you cannot explain why women do not need a gold chain around a cock to be turned on. You assert many things, like the ludicrous notion that women are disgusted by cocks, which shows how little you really know about female sexuality.

Sara Carbonero, a beautiful sideline reporter and girlfriend of Spanish goalkeeper Iker Casillas, is being blamed by some fans for Spain’s shocking World Cup loss to Switzerland on Wednesday. The Guardian reports that the gorgeous sportscaster is accused of distracting her boyfriend by being so close to the field before and during the crucial match. Casillas allowed the game’s only goal, and Spanish fans are worried that Carbonero could be to blame.

When a woman is raped, it’s the woman’s fault, not the man’s. When we consider presidential candidates, we consider how supportive their wives will be—but not how supportive presidential husbands will be (Clinton). When a goalie lets a ball pass, we blame his girlfriend. In all these instances, we parade around the most sexy photos we can find of the woman, whether to show that she was indeed asking for attention or simply because we cannot talk about a woman without considering how fit her body is for male consumption.

Let’s finish this

Eivind thinks women have always been in lower economic positions because they’re hypergamous and not as capable as men. This is perhaps the most revealing of his statements, as it shows how women must be seen to be able to justify rape:

First, let’s get something clear. Women are not stupid—on average, we’re as intelligent as any male, as tests over the last century have confirmed. Occasionally we are found to be a few points less intelligent, but that’s been disputed by men, and women have been found to have higher IQ’s at later stages of life. Indeed, some attempts to show men as more intelligent have been found as fraudulent. Any neuroscientist knows the differences in the male and female brain are more subtle and varied than the stereotypes and that intelligence differences between the two come down to where that intelligence is slightly stronger. While women sometimes have to act stupid to either be socially acceptable or to not frighten men, the IQ tests show it’s just that: an act.

Why, then, have we consistently been worse off? Time for a history lesson, which I’m shocked and appalled I need to give. In the past, which Eivind Berge has clearly never read about, women weren’t allowed to raise their positions in any way except marriage. They could not get themselves educations, despite fighting constantly for the chance. There are here and there rare examples of mostly self-educated women who were taught to read, but I note that in American society for example, pre-Civil War reformation culture was due largely to womens’ newfound right to literacy. They had no property rights, indeed, they were considered property of their husband’s. They had no legal power, and were not allowed to so much as challenge their society without, y’know, being burned for witchcraft or beat by their husbands.

Hypergamous? Yea, women had to be. As one commenter put it:

It strikes me that hypergamy can only occur in societies where there is a pronounced social inequality between sexes in the first place. ‘Marrying up’ is presumably an attempt to address that imbalance for some reason, possibly for the sake of children. Wouldn’t this imply that as the sexes become more equal in terms of status, money, power etc, the difference between the desirability of rich and poor men will decrease?

Eivind, of course, entirely ignored this suggestion, as he has ignored anything which proved his argument wrong. Which includes a great deal of comments on his own blog, for example:

I thought I could leave this alone, but alas, I can’t. Your anger about affirmative action is sorely misplaced. Affirmative action was not pushed through by "feminists." Affirmative action was pushed through the political sphere, which is overwhelmingly controlled by men (for example, in the US, only 17 out of 100 senators are female today). So you should really be angry with other men, not women.

…as well as comments made here showing that male sexuality is no less of a potential resource than female sexuality, that women desire men regardless of their economic power, etc, etc. All of that? Ignored. In fact, Eivind Berge simply dropped out of the debate this post is continuing from, claiming that he simply “didn’t have the time” (despite being able to go after the weakest and least relevant points in my post), yet has continued debating elsewhere.

Eivind also bases many of his claims on A Natural History of Rape—which is all fine and good except that it makes up half of his references and it is not held as a very reputable source. As is pointed out:

Example: Thornhill claims that a study has shown that reproductive-age women are more traumatized by rape than older or younger women who are not in danger of pregnancy, and he takes this as one of the pillars of his argument that rape is a strategy for reproduction. Problem: His reference for this study is one of his own articles, dated 1991. When you go find this article, you find that it contains a reference to one of his articles, dated 1990. When you find this, it references the study yet again, but in an article of his dated in the early 1980s. When you find this article, you find another reference, but at least this is to the original research — a study of 27 women that was done in 1974, and which, in fact, the original researchers (not Thornhill) found to indicate that women of all ages and reproductive status were equally traumatized. It was only after Thornhill ran this study through a series of computerized "filters" to factor out things he felt to be extraneous, was he able to turn this interpretation on its head. And it seems that he and Palmer went to extraordinary lengths to make the original data hard to find, in order to obscure the small size and age of the study as well as the original interpretation. The accepted method for citation is to list the original study "as quoted in" one’s own article — not simply to quote one’s own series of articles.

Clearly Eivind Berge’s statements are not as factual as he wants us to believe. Where his opponents have brought up countless counter-examples and academic knowledge, he has simply ignored them.

The final blow to Eivind Berge’s claims? It’s well acknowledged that the single largest factor in women’s choice of mates is the man’s natural body odor. Try taking a bath, Eivind.

Every assumption which supports Eivind Berge’s argument is false. Every (and by every, I mean two) piece of evidence highly disputed. Women desire sex and treat male sexuality as a commodity when they have the ability to. Human sexuality and psychology is more conflicted than black and white—we are aggressive and murderous, but at the same time infinitely empathetic. Urges and needs drive us but so do kindness, affection, and morality. But, like every libertarian, Eivind Berge is incapable of seeing the humanity beyond the cold, hard social economics.

And in a more humorous end, let’s point out another way in which Eivind Berge is wrong—here’s an example of a “free-sex” brothel opening in Norway where men and women are volunteering to have sex with strangers, for free. Kind of goes against everything he’s claimed, doesn’t it.

Sorry, Eivind, but you no longer have a right to claim that no one’s proved you wrong. It’s been done a hundred times over, by me, by LT, by Sanna, by anyone with simple logic. Your sources are awful, your claims shown false by numerous examples, your loss evidenced by your backing away.

On the rape-friendly culture it’s shown us

There’s an unsung hero in the comment log of Eivind Berge’s article on “rape as equality”, a mysterious woman by the username of LT who unfortunately has no way to contact her and thank her for her patience in dealing with his creep. Consider this my thank you, LT.

The great blessing of the internet is that anonymity lets us know what people are really thinking. Here’s part of every comment agreeing with Eivind Berge’s rape is equality post. They should chill you to the bone. Each quote is from a different person—and there are more in his other posts agreeing with him.

sex is a mans BIRTHRIGHT!nope, im no ‘misogynist’.

Women use the government to steal from men, and force men to be weak. It is fair on this basis that men steal sex, and make women weak.

I thought of this too, but it is good to see how other men have already followed through on the logical consequences of affirmative action for women once you do away with the feminist hypocrisy and double standards.However, as an individual, I don’t feel this means that I need to go around raping women to rectify the loss to myself due to affirmative action policies. It merely means that I would be morally justified to do so. A right does not imply a responsibility to use that right, no matter what some may say. As I currently am, not raping anyone, I am not in the wrong.

i really dont see anything wrong with eivinds hypothesis about a possible blowback to radical feminists hypergamous golddigging.

Thank you for this interesting and informative blog post. It spoke to me, as a man, in a way few blogs have. I agree with you completely. The designs of feminists to systematically deprive or forcefully extort from men, have created a society where every whims and fancies of women are considered as genuine demands, while any genuine needs of men are looked upon as if men are too demanding or demeaning women!!! Moreover, the feminists designs have resulted in so many false and frivolous rape and sexual harassment charges against men. What about that?? Is it justified in name of equality?? There are numerous examples: One example is a recent one happened in India, where a woman after a full 1-year live-in relationship with a man calls RAPE and the poor man has now been arrested. Isn’t this an emotional/financial/social RAPE of MAN?

That’s right, if you’re a gold-digger you should be raped. He’s not even justifying it in broad social equality terms.

if EVERY woman on the planet, right now, got REALLY raped, yknow, (NOT the i gut drunk and regret last years sex with my boyfriend ‘rape’) but actually forcibly raped by a STRANGER, i wouldnt give one damn shit. not one damn lil bit. and i SURE as hell dont care about what goes on in africa

A few more notes. Eivind Berge actually claims that when a white man rapes a woman, it’s a made up feminist statistic, but it’s not (and somehow worse) when non-whites do it:

Black men raping white women is pretty much the norm in Norway, too. All 41 alleged real rapes (not bogus feminist rape, which they convict white men for to make the stats look prettier by SWPL standards) in Oslo from 2006-2008 were committed by non-Western immigrants, mostly Africans and Kurds. It is astonishing that the police themselves admit this.

This isn’t trolling. Rape culture is a horrible reality, and in my next post I’ll examine it more closely.

A final way in which you can take action

Sign our petition or write to the University of Bergen and ask them to restrict his access to female students. He is a danger to the women around him and I truly hope action is taken.

And finally, I leave you with something chilling Eivind Berge stated: “More feminism will only produce more men like me.”

Until inequality is challenged, things often seem to be just fine; when groups stand up and demand equality, we suddenly see how fiercely people will defend their privilege. —Sociological Images

 

Radical Islamists can frighten Americans who fail to put death tolls into perspective. Their real power lies in their ability to frighten critics of Islam—and that is truly terrible—but the overall effect of censoring criticism of Islam does little to really harm this country and much of the world. If Islamists really wanted to destroy America and Western culture—as we are constantly told—they need only give Christian nationalists more power.

I feel the need to retroactively add that Islam has to be fundamentalist and radicalized to present any threat greater than simply influencing thought. Whereas, Christianity poses a threat to America in all it’s forms. The difference isn’t so much in the religions themselves as it is which religion has more control over the country.

I’d encourage you to give it a read, as well as subscribe to ACP if you’re interested in critique of Christianity. The blog comes from a larger perspective than just my own atheist and secular one, and the writers there are well-educated and intelligent. If you choose to comment on the post, please do so there.

And yes, I’m making an attempt to blog actively again.

So apparently there are pro-rape advocates in the world. I’m not talking, men and women who come up with weak excuses for this or that specific rape. I’m not talking, “well she was a slut…” or “well she was a temptress dressing that way…”. I’m talking, actually advocating that women be raped. Don’t believe me? His entire post:

When men have something women have less of, such as money or power, women simply take it by force. It’s called affirmative action and feminists believe it’s right. I am not going to argue against that. I accept that as a lost cause. So instead I am going to embrace forced equality and demand it for men as well. What women have that men don’t is of course sex. If anyone doubts that sex is a female resource, go here and request the PDF file Baumeister, R.F. & Vohs, K.D. (2004). Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 339-363. In light of feminism, or if you believe in equality, this article makes such a compelling case for rape that Baumeister felt obliged to include the otiose disclaimer, "Our analysis should in no way be construed as excusing sexual coercion and we roundly condemn any such acts." So let us give women equality if that’s what they really want. Remember that due to the hypergamous nature of women, men get less sex as women get more money and power. Women are generally incapable of feeling attraction for men who are not better than they are, and soon men are no better than equal. So it is about time men in feminist countries such as Norway stop thinking of rape as wrong. I have previously argued this point e.g. here as Arpagus, and no one has been able to justify why affirmative action is right when it benefits women and hurts men but is wrong when it helps men and hurts women.

No, Eivind Not-A-Misogynist-Really Berge, it is not about time. I’m not going to link to his blog, if you want the URL ask me or just Google the quote above. He doesn’t deserve more attention. Looking through his blog, however, there are some things of note: Eivind Berge does not think rape can be considered rape unless the woman (and he believes only women can be raped) resists to the best of her ability (nevermind if she is unable to give consent, not in a state of mind in which she can give consent, or is being threatened or coerced). He states repeatedly on his blog that women have value as sex objects and nothing more.

The post itself is a year old, but points to a larger problem. There are quite a few people who apparently agree with our wannabe rapist, even going so far as to give him tips on picking up girls – which is tantamount to knowingly assisting with rape (since he has declared his position that all women must be raped, and he himself whines often on his blog of not getting any). He further claims that no one has proved him wrong. I find that hard to believe, after all, if you’re capable of convincing yourself that rape is not only okay but should be done, there’s really not any way to convince you otherwise.

And quick note: I sincerely hope this guy gets raped. Not by women, because he’s made it rather clear he’d take any woman because he’s so desperate, and wouldn’t view it as rape. No, I hope an entire prison worth of men takes their sexual frustration out on them. I’m sure you’ll agree with me on that one. Read on for a dissection of his argument, information about the guy and his misogynist pals, and how to help prevent this creep from taking his pro-rape views out on any women.

Why Eivind Berge is dead wrong

Eivind Berge’s entire argument basically revolves around “well this psychiatrist guy wrote this article with a title that sounds like it supports my position so I’m right”. The article he links to essentially declares this:

A heterosexual community can be analyzed as a marketplace in which men seek to acquire sex from women by offering other resources in exchange. Societies will therefore define gender roles as if women are sellers and men buyers of sex. Societies will endow female sexuality, but not male sexuality, with value (as in virginity, fidelity, chastity).

The article he links to, however, does not come to the conclusion that rape is justified—yet Eivind says that the article itself makes such a good case for rape that it must include a disclaimer. He is attempting to say that just by reading the findings, you should find rape justifiable. Yet the psychologist who wrote the article does not even find rape justifiable. This is like pointing to the Bible to say genocide is wrong then being reminded the Bible happily suggests it.

But let’s get to it. Aside from expecting that article to do all his debating for him, Eivind Berge’s entire argument is essentially:

1. A woman’s value is as a sex object, while a man’s value is in his economic power.
2. Feminism is unjustly and forcefully taking economic power from men.
3. Women do not provide sex for men whose economic worth is less than theirs, thus, men are being deprived of sex.
4. Because men (presumably) have a right to women’s bodies, and because that right is being taken forcefully due to their lowered economic status, it is only fair that they forcefully take women’s bodies.

We got all that? Let’s tackle this shit. First, a few quick notes:

• Eivind Berge focuses entirely on heterosexual-heterosexual rape. Presumably, he thinks he also has a right to the bodies of lesbians whose “sexual worth” was never his to take. I am curious if he thinks male-male rape is rape.
• He believes rape is only rape if the victim, a woman, is resisting to the best of her ability. He does not believe violence, coercion, drugs, childhood innocence, etc, come into the equation. Consent is not necessary in his opinion. However, he doesn’t think it’s possible for a woman to rape a man – he argues this by saying that men would consent to any sex (why hello there double standard) and apparently ignoring the possibility that a man might not consent despite being aroused (Viagra, physical arousal vs. saying NO). This is important to keep in mind when it comes to his argument that women should be raped because, in setting a double standard when it comes to what is rape for a man and what is rape for a woman, he acknowledges that women desire sex of their own accord and without desire for a man’s wealth.

Eivind Berge’s argument hinges on double standards, false assumptions, and worse, a complete and total lack of morality. As appeals to morality will do no good here, let’s focus on the argument itself. His argument also apparently rests on a false definition of rape, judging by his other posts. Rape is not sexual intercourse where the woman is resisting to the best of her ability. Rape is sexual intercourse without consent. That is the nearly universal definition, accepted by just about…everyone, and includes sexual intercourse where one party is coerced or unable to give real consent.

Gender resources are social constructs

What women have that men don’t is of course sex. If anyone doubts that sex is a female resource…

Women’s worth lying in their nether regions is, let’s make this clear, a social construct. Specifically, a social construct which was created by men, perpetuated by men, and is now being defended by men. The article which Eivind links to analyzes the current state of gender roles in most societies (Eivind happily ignores gender equal or matriarchal societies as they do not fit into his worldview), and Eivind uses the nice, authoritative sound of a psychologist’s findings to make his point sound stronger than it truly is.

Let’s get this straight: it’s not exactly a revelation that women’s bodies are traded for wealth. This is the general model for how society expects relationships to work. It is, however, just that: a model, a social construct. Male sexuality has no worth in society because those it is of no worth to those in power, ie men. Eivind, as a heterosexual male (aha! So that’s why his link specified heterosexual society) has no desire for cock. He is not willing to pay for it, or make any effort for it, and he would surely cry crocodile tears if it were forced upon him. Would he change his mind if the cock in question were attached to a wealthy business owner, and he were a single father in need of cash? Quite possibly. Does this mean Eivind’s only worth is as a sex object? After all, Eivind is just as capable of being valuable in other ways.

By equalizing economic worth, feminists are equalizing other forms of worth as well. As I’ll mention below, the slow increase of sexual harassment in the workplace with women as the perps and men as the victims greatly weakens Eivid’s argument.

Even though women filing charges makes up the bulk of the EEOC’s sexual harassment workload, men are becoming a bigger piece of the pie, with nearly 2000 filing charges last year…

It’s been well known for a while that women have begun to sexually harass men and make advances in the workplace towards men, abusing their higher economic power just as men have done the past thousand years or so. Why Eivind is not in the know remains unclear. What isn’t unclear is that when men’s economic power is reduced, women are happy to use their own economic power to get sex from men. This proves that when men women gain economic status instead of men, men are not left worthless—their social worth is simply different. In fact, if, as Eivind argues elsewhere on his blog, “men cannot not want sex, they will happily take anything”. If this is the case, perhaps Eivind should be celebrating the fact that economic equality leads to sexual equality and some insane woman might see him as worth anything.

Feminism unjustly takes wealth from men

This is probably the most clearly misogyny-driven claim in Eivind Berge’s argument. The old model (of: society only recognizes women’s value as sex objects and prevents them from having any wealth or power) is being dismantled by the feminists Eivind hates so. In freeing up positions for women, feminists are ending the system of legal prostitution (ie: marriage) in which women had no choice but to give their bodies in exchange for the ability to have food on the table. We are in a period of transition: many women and men still expect women to trade their bodies for sex because it has only been a decade or two since those ideals started being challenged. At the same time, many don’t want that at all.

Wealth represents (note: represents, not is, wealth is a social construct as well) access to resources that provide political power and a longer, happier life. Sex is an action resulting from biological lust, socially, it touches upon countless socially constructed meanings. To take wealth to the point where it harms a person is violence, but to deny wealth or power not to the point of harm is not violence. Rape is always violence.

No one has been able to justify why affirmative action is right when it benefits women and hurts men but is wrong when it helps men and hurts women.

I doubt that. It seems more likely Eivind has simply ignored them. As a libertarian, he has already rejected their argument. The problem is of course, as mentioned above, that affirmative action is part of ending a system in which women were in the position men are now finding themselves getting an inkling of. Namely, men have long used affirmative action to maintain a monopoly on wealth, and thus a monopoly on women’s sexual value as well. Men’s monopoly on power and wealth means that, regardless of merit, it is more difficult for women to reach the same positions as a man. And of course it is—they are the ones doing the hiring because they were hired by men. The only way to change this is to allow women equal footing so that affirmative action is someday no longer necessary. Eivind feels affirmative action is wrong, and he has a perfectly valid stance when it comes to that. The problem is that he feels instead of using his voting power to change this, he prefers to use violence and terrorism. That is what rape is—violence. Reducing a groups’ economic status can be as well, if you are lowering wealth to the point of harm. But as men were, and are still, the most economically powerful group, affirmative action does not amount to violence. Rape will always be a very personal act of violence.

Women desire sex, too

Remember that due to the hypergamous nature of women, men get less sex as women get more money and power. Women are generally incapable of feeling attraction for men who are not better than they are, and soon men are no better than equal.

This is the most obviously ludicrous claim, and where the argument truly falls apart. “Men get less sex as women get more money and power” is not only entirely unsupported by Eivind, only claimed, it’s obvious bullshit. Women have a sex drive. That is a fact, and one so unquestioned I’m shocked Eivind chose to link to an already established fact and not to something which supports this assumption of his. Eivind admits to having little experience with women, so it’s no wonder. But I guess he’s never heard of that whole sexual harassment by women thing. You know, that destroyed his whole Or maybe he has and just ignores it, after all he’s of the opinion that no man could ever not want a woman. Men, I know that isn’t true.

And whoops—it looks like Eivind’s slyly admitting something isn’t quite right with his argument. Women are generally incapable of feeling attraction for men who are not better (misogyny much? I think you meant wealthier), he says. Yet he advocates rape against all women, and admits in saying this that it is not in fact in women’s nature to be hypergamous at all. Yes, Eivind—what you are in fact referring to is not only the fact that women’s personalities differ but that the times, they are a-changin’.

Even if men did have a right to women’s bodies, Eivind acts as if women have no sex drive of their own and must in fact have their clitorises stroked with $100 bills to have any interest in a man at all. While many women still seek out wealthy partners (and why not? society both denies them and does not expect them to provide for themselves, and expects them to sell themselves—and research has time and time again proven that human beings act as they are expected to. So stop pressuring us!) and marriage is certainly an economic arrangement, the reasons are social.

The idea that women won’t put out at all as a result of their newfound wealth, however, is downright stupid. Feminism has resulted in the ability for women to have freer sexual lives – if anything, Eivind should be kissing the feet of women’s equality for allowing women to have premarital sex with creeps such as himself. Note this: Marriage is an economic arrangement. Even dating is a form of prostitution if it is performed in the same old, patriarchal system of man-provides-money-woman-puts-out. Yet this is so often not the case, and women continue to have sex outside of economic arrangements, without desiring marriage

Oh, look—the very psychologist Eivind’s argument depends on notes that female sexuality is culturally malleable. Meaning, that if society stopped acting like women’s worth lay in their vaginas and men’s worth lay in their pocketbooks, Eivind’s problem would be a non-problem.

Responding to controversies about the balance between nature and culture in determining human sexuality, the author proposes that the female sex drive is more malleable than the male in response to socio-cultural and situational factors. A large assortment of evidence supports 3 predictions based on the hypothesis of female erotic plasticity: (a) Individual women will exhibit more variation across time than men in sexual behavior, (b) female sexuality will exhibit larger effects than male in response to most specific sociocultural variables, and (c) sexual attitude-behavior consistency will be lower for women than men.

So what does that mean? If women are economically equal to men, and as a result are no longer forced to barter the only thing men feel they need from them, women will no longer barter their sexuality. The day men stop treating us as sexual objects is the day women stop treating men as blank checks. But men seem to be in no hurry to do so. It is feminists who are giving men increased social worth by making them more than a checkbook. But leave it to a libertarian to think only in terms of monetary value.

If taken to it’s logical end…a conclusion

If his logic is taken further, this means force is a fair and just solution to discrimination. While Eivind only wants to apply this one way (because he assumes that the power given to white, able-bodied men is deserved), he is in fact making a case for (his view of) affirmative action, which he claims is the reason for his pro-rape position in the first place. If he views forcefully taking something from another person as a justifiable reaction to having one’s economic status and power kept low, then surely he can see the reason those who are not white males feel justified in using (what he sees as) force to gain economic power. It is not that women or minorities are incapable or undeserving of the positions men currently hold. Men have consistently used force to prevent women from having any power, economic or political. By his own admission, force to undo that effect is entirely justified. I’m curious is Eivind feels violence against those who caused the recession—thus lowering men’s economic status, and even moreso women’s—should be violently punished. That wouldn’t be very libertarian of him, would it?

Pals? What pals?

Yes, there are sick bastards who agree with Eivind and even give him tips on meeting women. You need only look, though I suggest you not give him the rise in visits.

And we’re almost done…it’s just, censorship’s a bad idea

So apparently the folks at Jezebel or some such want to have this creep’s blog shut down and have him censored. This is a very, very, very bad idea imo. As pointed out below, this guy is a rape waiting to happen. Making sure future employers/women in his life are aware of his pro-rape position is important—those willing to agree with him already exist and will do so regardless of whether or not he’s shut down. If anything, he does more to help the feminist cause than hurt it, and keeping his site up only serves to harm him.

Taking action

Eivind Berge advocates rape and believes that men have an inherent right to women’s bodies. Further, he believes that rape is not rape unless the woman is resisting to the best of her ability—meaning, he does not feel using coercion, physical violence, drugs, childhood innocence, etc, amounts to rape. He’s made it clear he’s actively looking for sex. Even more insane is that several readers of his blog want to help him. This is a rape waiting to happen, so I have no problem posting his face, full name, information, and words in Norwegian to prevent any women from having to experience his pro-rape position personally. Googling his name does lead to his blog, however, it’s all in English – which is rather convenient for this son of a bitch. Because of this, I’ve posted his words in Norwegian below, and would appreciate spreading the link to get it further up Google. Eivind Berge (it’s unclear if that’s his actual name or a reference to the place he lives in, but I’m going with what I’ve got here as Amazon.com declares it is in fact his real name) lives in Bergen, Norway, and goes under the pseudonyms easyei and Arpagus. He tweets, goes to the University of Bergen, and has a FaceBook profile. And I sure hope he doesn’t mind this – after all, he’s advocating I be fucking raped.

EIVIND BERGE:Voldtekt er likestilling

Når menn har noe kvinner har mindre av, for eksempel penger eller makt, kvinner bare ta det med makt. Det kalles likestilling og feminister tror det er riktig. Jeg har ikke tenkt å argumentere mot det. Jeg aksepterer det som en tapt sak. Så i stedet skal jeg omfavne tvunget likestilling og krever det for menn også. Hva kvinner har som menn ikke er selvfølgelig sex. Hvis noen tviler på at sex er en kvinnelig ressurs, gå hit og be om PDF-filen Baumeister, RF & Vohs, K.D.  (2004). Seksuell Økonomi: Sex som Kvinne Ressurssenter for Exchange i Heterosexual interaksjoner. Personlighet og sosial psykologi Review, 8, 339-363. I lys av feminisme, eller hvis du tror på likestilling, gjør denne saken så overbevisende sak for voldtekt som Baumeister følte seg forpliktet til å inkludere otiose forbehold, "Vår analyse bør på ingen måte tolkes som unnskylde seksuell tvang og vi roundly fordømmer en slik handlinger." Så la oss gi kvinner likestilling hvis det er det de virkelig ønsker. Husk at på grunn av hypergamous natur kvinner, menn får mindre sex som kvinner får mer penger og makt. Kvinner er generelt ute av stand til å f øle tiltrekning til menn som ikke er bedre enn de er, og snart menn er ikke bedre enn like. Så det er på tide menn i feministisk land som Norge slutte å tenke på voldtekt som galt. Jeg har tidligere argumentert for dette punktet e.g. her som Arpagus, og ingen har vært i stand til å begrunne hvorfor kvotering er rett når det fordeler kvinner og menn gjør vondt, men er galt når den hjelper menn og kvinner gjør vondt.

"Fatwa on your head?" a new series of provocative ads on New York City buses asks. "Is your community or family threatening you? Leaving Islam?"

The ads, sponsored by an organization called Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA), direct viewers to refugefromislam.com, a website designed "for people who are thinking of leaving Islam or are leaving Islam and need resources" to protect them from harm.

Oh, whoops. That’s why. No complaints against the specific ads mentioned above–I guess if atheists want to question religion they need to specify which one instead of vague comments directed at, you know, nobody’s specific belief system.

Seriously, what the fuck.

The law requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there is reason to suspect they’re in the United States illegally.

The problem with the law isn’t immediately apparent. While on the surface it doesn’t appear to have anything about race…there’s something not being stated. Just like the original U.S. Constitution’s sly mention of freepersons, Indians, and “all other persons” (i.e., slaves), the new Arizona law doesn’t mention that the only people suspected of being in the United States legally are going to be those who are Mexican or appear to be Mexican. Someone I spoke to put it in an interesting light her half-Indonesian son, who looks Mexican, would be suspect in Arizona and harassed. After all, what does a Mexican look like? Nevermind that there are Mexicans whose families have lived in the area longer than whites have (it’s entirely irrelevant that the U.S. took the land, isn’t it?), Mexicans happen to be a group who Americans can see as any other racial group. Spanish? Looks Mexican to us. Romanian? Looks Mexican to us. Indian? Looks Mexican to us. Anyone who looks even vaguely brown-skinned is the target of this law.

A reminder that there are other web-based ways to further the communist and anarchist cause out there, my favorite of which is Global Communist, created by Doug. It’s an aggregator of anarchist and communist related blogs. He’s also created the great Global Atheist. If there are any other web-based projects out there I’d appreciate a heads-up and would love to spread the word.

The slogan of Tea Party Express’ third tour is "Just Vote Them Out."

The problem being, of course, these are people who are upset because they didn’t win the vote.

It’s time to reduce the size of government, honor the Constitution and return to fiscal responsibility in Washington.

They were singing a whole different tune when Bush was pushing the limits of what the federal government could do to citizen’s rights, and they have no respect for the Bill of Rights (and no recognition of the Constitution and how it was formed to protect elitist interests), and they supported a candidate who supported the bailouts.

Fueled by anger at the government and fear of where the country was headed, it grew from dozens to hundreds of loosely linked groups.

It was formed by corporate sponsorship, actually.

Old, white, and mired by a false patriotic history, the Tea Partiers paint themselves as "Revolutionaries" just because they are protesting what they vote against. The only thing radical about them has been their extreme paranoia and willingness to use racism and violence to get what they want. These are old folks scared by even the tiniest movement towards not-really-socialism. Sporting slogans like “dissent is patriotic”, these “revolutionaries” hissed at anyone who so much as didn’t wear a flag pin, or, worse, actually spoke up against the Bush administration. These “revolutionaries” protest debt and taxes when they’re baby boomers who can thank faux-socialism for their benefits. They can thank taxes for having clean water,

What sickens me is that anti-government activism and philosophies are legitimate and deserve more public consideration. Tea Partiers are making government a left-wing thing, and anti-government a right-wing thing, when that isn’t the case at all. They’re embarrassing anyone who has ever argued against having a government, or a strong government, or mentioned the virtues or revolution or dissent. You know, like we’ve been doing the eight years Bush was in charge and are still doing?

Modern journalism consists of a daily race for scoops that offer little to no real insight on situations, and leave the public just as uninformed as they were when they started. Traditional conventions of journalism began in the 17th century in a world that was too different from the one today to continue to be used simply for tradition. They began with the idea of journalism for profit. Are these conventions outdated? For the most part, yes.

By focusing on appeasing and drawing in large non-lower class audiences, newspapers have lost sight of their purpose in society: “to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable”. By taking “newspaper” or “news channel” too literally, the news industry has reversed this purpose. The cobbled together, thoughtless feed often only serves to afflict the afflicted by perpetuating stereotypes without informing readers about the causes behind current events, and comforts the comfortable by essentially just parroting their press releases and sound bites.

Examples: How many times in the news have you read that China or North Korea is a communist nation? How many times did you read that Al Gore said he invented the internet? Or that the “global warming emails” were scandalous? How many times did the news not mention the background behind Somalian pirates, or the reality of who is on welfare in this country, or the connection between property values and white privilege, or the historical reasons behind underdevelopment in third world countries, etc, etc…? 

News organizations have done a fine job of covering these events as they happen but a horrible job providing real knowledge of what’s going on.

The typical news values of "timeliness, proximity, unusual nature and prominence" are not enough. The defining value editors and reporters must focus on should be relevance.

The daily news feed allows little time for a reporter to think. It is understandably difficult to take in-depth, close looks at society and the causes behind the news in a daily or 24-hour broadcast. But it comes at the cost of better reader understanding of issues, especially complex ones with a deeper than immediate background. When it comes to topics like politics in the middle east, Somalia, race and poverty in the United States, etc., there is far too much background than can be provided in a 30-second update.

Aside from changing the guidelines for what is and isn’t a news story, and adding more background, there are a few specific areas where the industry could improve.

Journalists need more education. It can take only two years to get a degree in journalism, yet journalists should be among the most educated members of society. In order to even report on an area or beat, a journalist should understand the historical context behind that topic. The public reads news articles more often than history books, so it’s important for journalists to bring that historical understanding into their stories. Without that contextual understanding, the reporter simply isn’t qualified and may only perpetuate falsehoods, both about race and gender, and other issues, and may fall into the trap of thinking that qualities are inherent instead of a result of historical causes.

Audiences today may desire, and be used to, instant and easily consumed information, but that need not come at the expense of remaining informative and useful. Editors and owners of news organizations must recognize that the press plays a vital role in society, one which “news as entertainment” does not satisfy, and that greater understanding of their subjects is required.

What about having a more diverse staff? The newspaper industry long ago recognized that having an all-white, all-male news industry wasn’t the best idea for covering a diverse country. And while it’s taking a long time and there is little progress, covering a diverse community does not stop at simply hiring minorities.

If the news industry’s goal is to be accurate coverage of its entire community’s world, the amount of minorities and women in the newsroom does matter. In The Face of the Front Page, Cynthia Lont and M. Bridge analyzed the front pages of newspapers around the world and found that men were by far the most referenced, quoted, and photographed. The people writing these male-centered stories were, by and large they found, men. My local paper follows this trend: its front page is almost exclusively male, and the opinions presented in the op-ed pages are similarly male dominated. Yet this same paper is one of the most diverse out there. News organizations must recognize that simply hiring a diverse staff is not enough. It must respect those staff members as authoritative, intelligent, and valuable people. It is not enough to simply hire non-whites because they are non-white. Women and non-whites must be hired based on their abilities and allowed to take pivotal roles within the newsroom.

By changing the hiring process to include a more diverse hiring staff, and by conducting “blind” hiring practices, the industry can hire based on ability and not simply physical factors. Hiring bilingual reporters, especially those who can speak Spanish fluently would allow the industry to not only better cover the various communities in states like California with more depth and accuracy, but it will allow the industry to serve those communities better.

The news industry could also improve its ability to serve diverse communities by training all of its reporters and interns to do so. Reporters should be educated in the history of the communities and areas they are covering, and the causes behind the current situations they are now reporting on. Reporters should be trained to seek out more than official sources and to recognize that a better suit does not mean a better quote.  Because the working class is larger and has more to gain from in-depth newspaper coverage of local issues, the industry has much to gain from seeking them out as readers. For many of the towns and small cities, large papers and channels should invest effort into developing community-specific online publications and having at least one reporter for each town. The reporter, or reporters, should be knowledgeable of the communities within the areas they are focused on.

Creating a “minority beat” would reinforce the false idea, mentioned above, that people are separated by their demographics. If something newsworthy happens to a minority, or in a minority community, it is still relevant and important for readers to know about. It’s the reporter’s job to make readers care, and they should be encouraged to do this in their stories.

The news industry needs to do more than just update its audience on what’s happening, or focus on bringing in minority reporters. That will never be enough. It needs to connect communities within communities, make them aware of each other, and make them aware of each other’s problems.

Filed under: class, gender, journalism, mainstream media, race ]]> http://bluelinchpin.wordpress.com/2010/03/28/thoughts-on-the-future-of-journalism/feed/ 6 Yvette