Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Gone Fishin’

Two recent posts concerning a lawsuit filed by a female against New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority caught my attention. The female, now 25, filed suit against the MTA, alleging that its employees were negligent in not coming to her aid when she was raped on a G train platform in Queens three years ago.

Coming straight to the point, Rex Patriarch fittingly asks, “Why Should Any Man Help You Now?”

Seemingly in answer, The Elusive Wapiti notes that this “World Without Men” is what feminists have long sought. Hence, he quite rightly finds it curious that feminists are offended that men did not risk their lives to run to the female’s rescue.

One clueless feminist commenter asked, “is violence against women THAT normalized??”

Here’s a clue: Why yes, yes it is. Violence against women has always been an integral part of every human culture. That is, until a couple of hundred years ago when a few good men of faith came to believe that such violence should not be tolerated. Of course, since then we’ve been excoriated for creating, building, and maintaining such a society so oppressive to women.

I find this comment particularly rich: “Anyone who can just stand and watch as a woman's taken off to be raped has a screwed up moral code.” You silly feminists spouting off to men about morality - really! Don’t you recall that you find men’s moral rules to be tyrannical and repressive?

Remember this?:
"A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle. " - Gloria Steinem

Well, we men have heard you. We’ve heard how you’re strong and independent. We listened when you told us that you didn’t need us. We believed you when you told us that we were irrelevant in your female life. As a matter of fact, all along we’ve heard your demands, and moreover, have given you everything you’ve asked for.

You now have everything you wanted.

I will no longer come to your rescue, and I implore my brothers in arms to do the same. I’m not running across the street to save you from a mugger. I’m not getting in a bar fight because some random thug accosts you. I am not your knight in shining armor, as you have so plainly let me know. Chivalry is dead, don’cha know.

Frankly, I will not even call the police to help you.

You see woman, I will no longer be so much as inconvenienced by your existence. You now offer me nothing, but have the gall to continue to demand everything. I suggest you begin practicing what you’ve been preaching all these years.

You’ve told me my entire life that you can handle anything. So handle it.

I have better things to do with my time. I have that 18 year old bottle of single malt to finish, good cigars to smoke, travel, a reading list as long as my arm, and, oh yes, hunting and fishing to do. That’s right, I smoke too much, drink too much, play my music too loud, drive a big truck, and kill tasty little woodland creatures for the grill. And lest I forget, I have dinner to cook, house cleaning, laundry, and shirts to iron. You see, I really can and do handle anything, including those little necessities of life you find so oppressive, but I find fulfilling.

Let me bottom-line it for you, sweetie: I will no longer be your friend, your colleague, your lover, your husband, or your savior.

I simply don’t need you. I just don’t care anymore.

I’ve gone fishing. And I’ll be away for the foreseeable future...

8 comments:

John Dias said...

I think that whenever we project our feelings about a collective onto an individual, we're usually making a big mistake. It wasn't feminism getting raped on that train, nor was it feminized culture, nor was it a set of sexist double standards. It was an individual woman getting raped. To say that this particular woman should not have been rescued because of the actions of some larger collective (such as feminism), is to adopt collectivist thinking in my view.

We men don't appreciate it when feminists say that we as a sex are "responsible" for the death and destruction of war, even though we have historically composed the lion's share of war casualties, and most of us had no political authority to deploy military forces (in fact, many were even conscripted -- forced -- into military service against our will). When feminists point to the political decisions of a few men and pin them on men in general, they demonstrate their collectivist bigotry. Bigotry is a form of collectivism -- it's judging a particular person based only on our perceptions of a much larger set of people. We would not be served by embracing that same line of thinking.

Now, granted, I think that the decision to risk one's life to rescue another is completely an individual prerogative. But the decision NOT to rescue a particular human being should have nothing to do with what feminism (or any other social movement) has done. No gender collectively owes anything to anyone, but an individual man might have shown courage if he had stepped in and tried to somehow help that woman.

While we should not shame men into risking their lives, at the same time let's not shame men into not helping either.

Anonymous said...

"...at the same time let's not shame men into not helping either."

We're not shaming men into not helping, we're encouraging men to not help women. AT ALL.

Chivalry is dead. Damsels in distress should stay distressed, and weep. Your gallant knight has gone fishing, bitch.

No seats for pregnant women.

No stopping over for a woman if her car breaks down.

Turning a blind eye to a woman getting assaulted and raped.

Notice I never laid a finger on the woman in all of the above three cases, so you cannot accuse me of violence against women when there is no physical contact. VAWA does not work here.

We are turning the screw up a notch, little by little, in this gender war thrust upon us men. We men didn't start the gender war, however we will finish it and win. For too long we have been demonised, spit upon and shamed by the feminazis. It is time to strike back and give them as taste of their own medicine.

Sure the victim may not be a feminist. Then she's just collateral damage - a casualty caught in the crossfire of the gender wars. We don't play Good Samaritans with women. In fact, don't play Good Samaritan at all. Altruism is for the naive.

Bigoted? Cynical? Misogynist? Call whatever names you like, we will not budge.

get real dude said...

Keep your eye on the ball. Nobody is saying that particular individual should or should not be helped. What is being pointed out is the hypocrisy of the feminists.

They expect to be helped in all situations regardless of how they treat men. Regardless of whether or not any man actually wants to help. They are the ones on their website demanding the guy who did not help be punished. It is their unrealistic expectations that are under scrutiny here.

They all see themselves as the next one to get raped. They have a very real fear that nobody cares what happens to them. Yes it has everything to do with feminism. That is how we got to this point.

What else should be noted here is who does the woman that got raped hate in the end? The guy that raped her or the guy (His body His choice) decided with his own free will to not help.

This is typical of what most western women poisoned with feminism believe. Men have responsibilities to sacrifice themselves to women at all costs where as women have perpetual choices without any responsibilities.

Elusive Wapiti said...

"...but an individual man might have shown courage if he had stepped in and tried to somehow help that woman."

Brother John, I think the point being made here is that the feminist influence on culture has rendered some (many?) men incapable or unwilling to render aid to someone in trouble. I don't blame the woman for being raped. I do point fingers at a culture that emasculates and dehumanizes, thus resulting in such moral paralysis that the subway booth attendant though nothing of just calling the cops and that was it.

I put myself in this fellow's shoes. These days, a whole host of cost-benefit calculations come to mind when evaluating whether or not to intervene in a particular sitation. Will I be sued, by either the victim or the perp? Will the cops go after me for doing the job they are charged with doing? Will my gun get taken away by envious anti-gun gang-banger cops? Will I get hurt or killed and widow my wife and orphan my kids? Who will take care of them if that happens? Will my efforts be taken for granted by women who crap on men?

In short, 'is it worth it?'

"What else should be noted here is who does the woman that got raped hate in the end? The guy that raped her or the guy (His body His choice) decided with his own free will to not help."

An interesting observation, Get Real. The woman excuses the criminal (an example of liberal cognitive dissonance re: crime) and blames the male witness she thinks had a duty to help her. I liked how you turned 'her body, her choice' around.

Does anyone think that a man would/could expect similar consideration from a woman if he's being raped by thugs?

I don't, and that's the whole crux of what's going on here.

Anonymous said...

John Dias, the decision not to help is as valid as the decision to help. Reasons do not matter. I am guessing you live in either a socialist or communist country as you seem to be trying to tell other people how to live their lives so let me help you adapt to the west. Here in the west, we enjoy freedom which means that even if I am doing something wrong and you know the proper way, you can keep your damn trap shut. We don't need to shame men into not helping....simply showing men the truth about how they've been treated as a gender since the beginning of time is enough to turn anyone away from a woman needing help. Not only wouldn't I have helped that woman on a subway but I'd have laughed and yelled out "Remember, YOU said no to a world where it was my obligation to protect you." She definately should not have been raped, that's unfortunate but just as definately, she should not have been helped and anyone who says otherwise is simply insulting the women who have worked hard to be equal. Women wanted this....they in fact asked to be treated the same. Just as I expect no help if I'm attacked, I will give no help if someone else is.

John Dias said...

Anonymous wrote:

"John Dias, the decision not to help is as valid as the decision to help."

In your opinion. I consider it any man's prerogative not to help, but in my opinion a man who helps such a woman made the better, more human choice.

Anonymous wrote:

"I am guessing you live in either a socialist or communist country as you seem to be trying to tell other people how to live their lives..."

Well, I live in California, so socialist influences are all around me. Incidentally, I'm a libertarian. That means that I specifically DON'T use coercion to force people to be do-gooders. However, that does not preclude me from disagreeing with you, and I'm not a socialist for disagreeing.

Anonymous wrote:

"Here in the west, we enjoy freedom which means that even if I am doing something wrong and you know the proper way, you can keep your damn trap shut."

It's obvious you have no conception of what freedom means. Here in the west, we enjoy freedom of speech, hence if I disagree with you and YOU don't like it, there's not a damn thing that you can do in order to force me not to express my opinion -- contrary to your Statist impulses.

Anonymous wrote:

"...simply showing men the truth about how they've been treated as a gender since the beginning of time is enough to turn anyone away from a woman needing help."

You think that it's impossible for any man to disagree with you, if he is aware of anti-male oppression. If someone disagrees with you, by gum, by MUST not understand. Otherwise, they would agree with you! I've got news for you: I disagree with you, and I fully understand what men have suffered in this culture. And if I disagree and understand, many more men are capable of doing the same. Can you live with that?

Anonymous wrote:

"Not only wouldn't I have helped that woman on a subway but I'd have laughed and yelled out 'Remember, YOU said no to a world where it was my obligation to protect you.'"

How do you know what this particular woman's political views are? Just because a feminist movement exists, doesn't mean that all women are feminist ideologues. And now, I will impose a shaming tactic on you (let's see if you can withstand it): if that woman was a family member who meant something to you, would you have mockingly laughed at her as you just described, refusing to help? A female relative is just as much a woman as that particular woman in the subway, and she is probably valuable and important to somebody.

Again, I have said in this very thread that it is the prerogative of each individual man on whether to offer help or not. Or did you miss that part? Perhaps you should update your reading prescription. Having acknowledged that it is each man's prerogative, I imparted a value judgment, saying that a man who chose to help this woman (beyond simply calling the police) would have been doing a noble thing. You've heard of value judgments, haven't you? It's that phenomenon that independent thinkers use -- you know, men who go their own way. You might consider trying it.

Anonymous said...

I have to say I don't agree with this post.

It reminds me too much of this feminist quote:

"I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don't even need to shrug. I simply don't care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don't matter" - Marilyn French; The Woman's Room

Anonymous said...

Another classical example of the gross misuse of Dowry Act (498A) is the case of television celebrity, Suhaib Ilyasi. India's Most Wanted television host was in controversy after the dispute over his daughter Aaliya's custody rose soon after Ilyasi's wife Anju committed suicide on January 10, 2000 in Delhi. While his mother–in-law, Rukma Singh wanted custody of the child on the ground that she had the right under Muslim law, Ilyasi had taken the plea that his marriage with Anju was not solemnized as per the Muslim law but had been a civil affair. His sister-in-law Rashmi Singh came from Canada after six months of her sister's death and filed a complaint with the police against Ilyasi, alleging that he used to torture his wife Anju for dowry.

The case took bizarre turn when Anju's brother Prashant Singh and father Prof K P Singh took a diametrically opposite stand and described the allegations against Ilyasi as ``rubbish.'' Prashant told Express Newsline:`whatever my mother and sister Rashmi are stating against Suhaib Ilyasi is a lot of rubbish. There is no truth in their statement or in the charges filed by the police against Suhaib. If you are holding Suhaib responsible for Anju's suicide, then my mother and sister are also to blame, as they unduly interfered in their family matters.

K P Singh, a retired IIT professor, agreed with Prashant. “My wife and daughter are breaking up my family”. Both Anju's father and brother allege that Rukma and Rashmi have given statements against Suhaib as `they wanted custody of baby Aaliya. When Ilyasi delayed that, they put him in trouble.'

Anju's mother Rukma Singh had changed her earlier statement given in January, 2000, in which she had stated that she did not suspect any foul play by Suhaib Ilyasi. However when Ilyasi refused to give custody of his daughter, she change her statement and alleged dowry harassment against Ilyasi.

It has been alleged for long that Dowry Act (498a) in India is being consistently misused by clever women for extortion and blackmailing. The NCRB records suggest that during 2005-2006, 94% of the 498A, 304B cases filed by women or by her relatives were primarily to settle scores.

Section 498A in itself is, however, not meant to deal specifically with dowry -- it is commonly considered to be a 'dowry law' because domestic violence against a wife related to dowry demands is considered to be within the scope of 'cruelty' envisaged by the Section.