From P.Z. Myers blog, pharyngula. I get this article by some guy called Eivind Berge (case in point, this is why anonymity might be a good idea on the internet), called “Rape is equality”.
Maybe it’s a clever title, right? I have planned many videos with risqué titles that explained what they mean later on. Not here though, he is literally proposing that “feminist countries such as Norway stop thinking of rape as wrong.”. Lovely.
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.
…
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 don’t know who this guy is, and anyone can blog, but I don’t know how anyone claiming to be a libertarian can hold such views. Also, it seems that Berge is using feminist-inspired thinking here, as opposed to libertarian thinking. The idea that we force, through the apparatus of law, the equality of groups who have perceived "”slights” above or below another, is leftist. The fact that this is not a libertarian position in any way is not going to be mentioned by Myers who has a rather fairytale image of what libertarianism actually is. This from a man who doesn’t like the subtleties of atheism passing the religious nuts by. Oh the irony!
That said, he just appears to be some berk on the internet, any reason to take thus guy seriously? Nope.
Despite this, such a juicy bit of material isn’t going to slip by Myers as he makes this statement:
What do women have that men don't? Vaginas. So poor pathetic Eivend Berge is asserting his right to rape. He's quite open about it: "it is about time men in feminist countries such as Norway stop thinking of rape as wrong" and "Rape is equality." You'll find his type is fairly common among a group who call themselves "Men's Rights" proponents, where Men's Right seems to be to maintain economic and social inequities that benefit them.
“You'll find his type is fairly common among a group who call themselves "Men's Rights" proponents”. If by “his type” you mean people who advocate rape then no, this is the first time I can remember seeing something like this. I can't hope to be as big an expert on the M.R.M. as P.Z. Myers is so I just hope that the next time he makes a calumny like that, he provides some evidence to back it up.
However, if by “his type” you mean the general misogynist woman hater label that leftists utter as commonly as the word “the”, then you will find a lot of those in the Men’s Rights Movement; if your principle source of information is blogs.
P.Z. Do you want me to trawl the feminists blogs and bring up some of the things they say? I don’t fancy the proposition very much and since we know what you would say, it would be a fruitless exercise. How about the feminist nuts who want the extermination of men? How about those who make biologically ignorant statements about men being parasites (literally) or about men being “an accident”. Do those positions say much about the broader movement of feminism? It depends. If the broader movement also has leaders who parrot those views or teach them in universities or use them to pass legislation then yes, otherwise no.
How many times do I have to keeps saying this? It matters not what kinds of nuts you can find and link to a movement. Unless the normative movement they stand behind can be show to support those views, then you cannot parlay the views of the nuts into anything larger unless you’re a demagogue who doesn’t care about the laws of logic being applied in unpartisan ways.
About this claim:
I'm afraid he needs to learn that legal corrections to a long and ongoing history of economic oppression of women are fair and just,
I’m sorry. Am I allowed to disagree? Or is it just a case of me being not being learned enough? (can you say gulag?). Yes there is one and only once acceptable view, and that is that coercive fiddling and quotas by the apparatus of coercion, government, is fair and just. Disagree, and expect the standard name-shower by the left. Racist, Sexist, Homophone, Xenophobe, etc.
What I love about “legal corrections” is that it is never suggested when these legal correction must stop. At what point do we stop “correcting” for women? When they’ve achieved equality perhaps? What kind? Literal or opportunity? Also, how about the boys falling behind at university? Do we roll back female privilege in university programs and admissions? They’d rather die.
Also, how about the philosophical point that a “legal correction” is sexism by the very definition of the word. In that, it requires the recognition of a candidate’s sex and the hard-coded rule of the land to dole out benefits according to that sex. Sexism pure and simple.
Would people who hate sexism so much actually use it so freely? Leftists don’t have sexism, but instead love victim theology and the politically correct Marx-based view of a society of battling oppressed groups who need the re-distribution of power amongst them.
In a battle for who disgusts me the most. Berge wins hands-down.
Posted on: Sunday, May 30, 2010 7:42 AM