Skip to main content

Follow me on Twitter @MattBors and order a copy of my latest book, Life Begins At Incorporation.

Originally posted to Comics on Wed May 28, 2014 at 06:50 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  It's a whole different world! (20+ / 0-)

    We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

    by occupystephanie on Wed May 28, 2014 at 06:58:57 AM PDT

    •  This is a parody, people! (0+ / 0-)

      It's pointing out the absurdity of the current male/female interaction climate.  Every woman is a liar and every man is a rapist.

      •  Parody? (4+ / 0-)

        It isn't a parody. It's literally true.

        •  Nope. Not parody. This is an example of male (0+ / 0-)

          privilege. Not to have to fear that any new woman they meet and agree to go out with might rape or kill them. It's not that it couldn't happen, just that it so rarely does. But how many rapes and incidences of violence against women by men happen every day???  

          ANd please, I beg you, do not argue with a change of subject that men are victims of violence too. Of course they are. And occasionally they are victims of female violence, but mostly they are victims of male violence. And they are not so targeted by men that they need to fear every new encounter with a man they don't know might end up in their rape or murder.

          Only male gang members who encounter members of an opposing gang probably have the same fear, or active duty soldiers in a war zone--but then at least the other guy is generally wearing some kind of tell that he's your enemy. It's pretty hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys--even if they are not carrying guns!

      •  Nope (6+ / 0-)

        If you think that's not what women think EVERY TIME we give our number to what we hope is a really nice guy stranger and not a psycho, you're either a guy (which is cool, and perfectly explains why you didn't understand exactly how literal that last panel is) or you're a chick who has led a fantastically charmed life that has somehow shielded you to the fact that dating is dangerous for women. Really dangerous. And if you are a woman, I fear for you, and I'm not saying that to be a dick. I genuinely mean it.

    •  She should have given him a fake number as he is (0+ / 0-)

      really stupid.  
      His worst fears should be that she will falsely accuse him of attempted rape.  Also that she kills him. A 9mm with which she is expert is an excellent defense if she fears rape.
      In today's USA, a man makes sure every move with a new potential girlfriend is in public, until he is quite certain that he can trust her. This has been true for a decade or more - only a really stupid man would not realize this.
      This rule is the same for every woman with a new potential boyfriend.  
      In real life, "worst fears" are balanced.

  •  thank you (29+ / 0-)

    I get it---men need to realize that a secure place in the world for them, does not mean that it's a secure world for women.

    Thanks for drawing this.

    I buy and sell well trained riding mules and American Mammoth Jack Stock.

    by old mule on Wed May 28, 2014 at 07:01:10 AM PDT

  •  Didn't our mommies tell us not to talk to (36+ / 0-)


    Seriously, appropriate image. I won't call it a cartoon, it hits too close to the bone.

    Guys risk their egos, but women risk their lives.

    "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

    by GreenMother on Wed May 28, 2014 at 07:10:10 AM PDT

    •  I talked to a stranger once (16+ / 0-)

      Sometime later she became my wife.

      Legal means "good".
      [41984 | Feb 4, 2005]

      by xxdr zombiexx on Wed May 28, 2014 at 07:34:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's not worth it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      If you feel are risking your life just being around a man, then you would be foolish being around men when you don't have to.

      "The oppressors most powerful weapon is the mind of the oppressed." - Stephen Biko

      by gjohnsit on Wed May 28, 2014 at 11:57:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Whats that supposed to mean? (11+ / 0-)

        If you didn't mean any harm then disregard the following.

        1) Predators don't come with warning labels. Sometimes you can spot the ones that haven't perfected their technique, but the rest not so much. The whole point is that the really bad guys do all they can to mimic the really good guys. No matter how good you are at reading people, no one is 100 percent.

        2) Women and Girls fight this indoctrination into a culture that says--don't get raped. Be open and nice to boys and men, and make them happy, be polite always (otherwise you are a bitch); but if they happen to be the bad ones and you went off alone with them under any circumstances--it's your fault you got raped.  

        So be open, but not too open. Be nice, but not too nice. Don't be a prude, don't be a slut, meanwhile--we are left thinking--(we-females)--sheesh make up our minds why don't ya!

        3. And our skills at reading people are always being undermined, because bad guys are never pillars of the community, never good looking, never normal looking or harmless looking. All rapists are monsters with cloven hooves and they stink of sulfur except when rule #1 applies.

        Yea thats not confusing at all.

        "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

        by GreenMother on Wed May 28, 2014 at 03:51:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Very simple (0+ / 0-)

          If I feel threatened by someone, I avoid them.
          Nothing more, nothing less.

          If the girl in the cartoon feels threatened by the guy then it would be crazy to go out on a date with him, don't give him your number, don't be alone with him.

            And if you are scared of all men, then what is the point of going out with a guy if you can't relax? Just avoid the dating scene and find another way to enjoy life.

           That doesn't sound crazy, does it?

          "The oppressors most powerful weapon is the mind of the oppressed." - Stephen Biko

          by gjohnsit on Wed May 28, 2014 at 04:18:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Quit being Obtuse. (5+ / 0-)

            A skilled predator never lets you feel threatened.

            Good lord. Get a clue already.

            "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

            by GreenMother on Wed May 28, 2014 at 04:22:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't think you understand (0+ / 0-)

              First of all the girl in the cartoon was scared, right? Was the guy in the cartoon a predator?
                Who knows? But it doesn't matter, because if the girl was scared of him then that should be the end of the story.
                No one should go out, or even hang out, with someone who scared them. End of story. If you do otherwise then you are going against your own instincts.

               So how is that statement obtuse?
              It's one of the ways I conduct my life.

              "The oppressors most powerful weapon is the mind of the oppressed." - Stephen Biko

              by gjohnsit on Wed May 28, 2014 at 04:26:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's always a risk. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                My Brain Works, snwflk, Lilredhead

                Ever hear of Acquaintance Rape? Most women know their attackers.


                Quit blaming the targets.

                Your ignorance of the issues that women face, INCLUDING a culture that constantly undermines their instincts is amazing.

                "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

                by GreenMother on Thu May 29, 2014 at 06:08:14 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You are hearing things that I'm not saying (0+ / 0-)

                  First of all, I said don't hang out with him if she is scared of him. That would preclude "Acquaintance Rape".

                   Secondly, I'm not blaming anyone. How could I blame anyone when no one in that scenario is being/has been raped?
                    Quite doing knee-jerk responses and listen to what I'm saying.

                  "The oppressors most powerful weapon is the mind of the oppressed." - Stephen Biko

                  by gjohnsit on Thu May 29, 2014 at 08:14:29 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No, she isn't. (5+ / 0-)

                    You fail to grasp the point of the cartoon, which has nothing to do with whether this particular woman is fearful of this particular man, or whether he has provided her with an obvious cause to be afraid of him (he hasn't). Your comment, "... don't hang out with him if she is scared of him" shows a fundamental lack of understanding. She isn't necessarily especially scared of this guy. Every woman faces this valid concern every day, and every time she meets someone new. That's the point.

                    "Tea is soothing. I wish to be tense." - Rupert Giles

                    by CelticOm on Thu May 29, 2014 at 12:01:05 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  THANK YOU (4+ / 0-)

                      If she was scared of him, she wouldn't be walking with him in the first place.  Casual things like that are one level of interaction.  Going on a date is something else.  You can think you know a guy pretty well and that he's a decent guy, but even decent guys can turn out to be complete raging assholes, and that fact can come out at the worst times (like when he's sexually assaulting you).

                      •  If that's the case (0+ / 0-)

                        And every man is a likely rapist, then avoiding all men is the logical conclusion.

                        "The oppressors most powerful weapon is the mind of the oppressed." - Stephen Biko

                        by gjohnsit on Thu May 29, 2014 at 01:44:30 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Um, no. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          Every man is a potential rapist. And your continued refusal to get that contributes to the problem.

                          "Tea is soothing. I wish to be tense." - Rupert Giles

                          by CelticOm on Thu May 29, 2014 at 05:17:50 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  gjohnsit, you are appallingly dense (3+ / 0-)

                          This is exactly why it is so hard to get through to so many men. Yeah, right, avoid half the human race. That's a likely solution.

                          There is a great skit by Louie CK where he examines the topic of this cartoon and comes to the conclusion that it is amazing that the human race continues, given that it relies on the astonishing bravery of women.

                          When I read the response of someone like you, gjohnsit, who is presumably a more than average intelligence human being, I feel some despair that the message will ever make it through.

                          Then I have to remind myself that things are getting better. Violent crimes have been dropping since humans have started keeping records on it. Rape and murder will one day be things of the past. Until then, even though I only date other women, I still must interact with countless men (many of whom I count as friends) and remain alert to the very real risk men pose.

                          ----- The brain is the only organ where you'd prefer to be the donor instead of the recipient.

                          by miriam e on Thu May 29, 2014 at 05:20:48 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Not likely; possible. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Wee Mama, churchylafemme

                          Shroedinger's Rapist.

                          One in every six American women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. I bet you don’t think you know any rapists, but consider the sheer number of rapes that must occur. These rapes are not all committed by Phillip Garrido, Brian David Mitchell, or other members of the Brotherhood of Scary Hair and Homemade Religion. While you may assume that none of the men you know are rapists, I can assure you that at least one is. Consider: if every rapist commits an average of ten rapes (a horrifying number, isn’t it?) then the concentration of rapists in the population is still a little over one in sixty. That means four in my graduating class in high school. One among my coworkers. One in the subway car at rush hour. Eleven who work out at my gym. How do I know that you, the nice guy who wants nothing more than companionship and True Love, are not this rapist?

                          I don’t.

                          When you approach me in public, you are Schrödinger’s Rapist. You may or may not be a man who would commit rape. I won’t know for sure unless you start sexually assaulting me. I can’t see inside your head, and I don’t know your intentions. If you expect me to trust you—to accept you at face value as a nice sort of guy—you are not only failing to respect my reasonable caution, you are being cavalier about my personal safety.

                          Fortunately, you’re a good guy. We’ve already established that. Now that you’re aware that there’s a problem, you are going to go out of your way to fix it, and to make the women with whom you interact feel as safe as possible.

                          Read the whole thing to find out the steps she takes to make herself safer when she goes on dates, and about the steps men can take to approach women in non-threatening ways.

                          The fact that women can't, and mostly don't want to, avoid interaction with the male half of humanity does not make the risk less real.  And it doesn't change that men and women experience the same situation with different fears.

                          © cai Visit to join the fight against global warming.

                          by cai on Fri May 30, 2014 at 08:41:37 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Your comments are really annoying and stupid and (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Wee Mama, churchylafemme

                          you refuse to be educated. Why don't you talk to your mother, your sisters, your daughters and wife if you have them? Perhaps they might have more credibility than all the women in the world that you don't know but choose not to believe. Otherwise, just stay away from women because you are too dense to comprehend the world women live in, and you'd be a royal pain in the ass to live with.

                •  And another thing (0+ / 0-)

                  Seriously? When someone does something they know is wrong they don't have to assume at least some responsibility for their actions?
                    We aren't talking about a situation where that person didn't understand the risks. That is easily forgiven.
                   We are talking about a situation where their instincts said "don't" but they did anyway.

                  "The oppressors most powerful weapon is the mind of the oppressed." - Stephen Biko

                  by gjohnsit on Thu May 29, 2014 at 08:22:09 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  YOU are the one who isn't getting it (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Lilredhead, GreenMother

                    She's walking with him.  She wouldn't be walking with him if she were scared of him.  Let me explain you some things:

                    Men who are perfectly nice and decent in casual company, who you'd trust to walk you home after dark, can, when told "No" about becoming intimate, have no qualms about sexually assaulting/raping a woman.  Men who are polite, affiable, otherwise respectable, good-natured, likable, and generally enjoyable to be around have sexually assaulted/raped, harassed, stalked, beaten, and/or killed women for rejecting them.  Men who, to all appearances, are perfectly decent guys have been Very Bad News.  There has been no way of knowing that until it was too late.  THAT is what this is about.

                    I'll put it another way.  I made baked shells for dinner.  20% have cyanide in them.  30% have a potent laxative that will affect you for a week in them.  There is no way of knowing if you took a tainted shell or a safe shell until after you've eaten it.  Enjoy!

                    •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                      I actually have a better understanding of it than you might think.
                        My answer is that I would never eat your cooking if that was the case.
                        And if you think most men are animals, that the "nice ones" are likely hiding their true selves, then not being with any of them is the logical conclusion.

                      "The oppressors most powerful weapon is the mind of the oppressed." - Stephen Biko

                      by gjohnsit on Thu May 29, 2014 at 01:41:29 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I actually have a better understanding of it than (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Lilredhead, GreenMother

                        you might think."

                        Clearly you don't. There is NO way to determine in advance which men will rape. So, according to you, all women should avoid contact with all men. Brilliant!!

                        The point of the cartoon is to TRY to improve male sensitivity to a problem ALL women face virtually ALL the time and which MANY men (cough, cough) simply fail to understand or accept.

                        •  Well, yes, sometimes (6+ / 0-)

                          I have sadly had to obtain an order of protection against a man who is clearly mentally ill, perhaps a sociopath. This was a man I trusted, whom I had a two year relationship with and was engaged to. He threatened my parents, my daughter, went into my cell phone and obtained my clients phone numbers without my permission, and began calling them, in a manic state, speaking incoherently, in an effort to destroy my business 'in 3 days' his exact words. I know you don't know me, but please take my word that this was unsolicited. We didn't have a fight. I had little to no indication that this was coming. I later learned he had an ex wife and two children, who also have an order of protection.
                          Short of an extensive background check (which, really, who does that in a seemingly healthy relationship?) I was blindsided. Oh yeah, and he's white, good looking, with a mid six figure creative job and an advanced degree. How could I know?
                          I have always loved men, but I haven't dated since. Not once. It's been 3 years. I won't risk the health and well being  of my daughter and my parents. When you've lived through it for real, sadly, it is the logical conclusion.
                          I know all men aren't like this, but is it worth the risk? Until I heal, my answer will be no.

                      •  So tell me (5+ / 0-)

                        How is a woman in any way responsible when she allows a male co-worker she has known for five years drop her off at her home after a late night working, and he rapes her.  This sort of scenario - acquaintance rape - is tragically common.

                        And until you recognize that such things happen and are not some kind of rare event, then you will continue to be guilty of blaming women for the assaults that men perpetrate on them.

                        You won't get that, but in case you ever decide to try.

                        A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury. - John Stuart Mill

                        by penelope pnortney on Thu May 29, 2014 at 09:49:31 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  And even if their instincts said don't and they (0+ / 0-)

                    did anyway--is that justification for letting them be raped with impunity?

                    Should we haul these women into the town square and put them in the stocks for not listening to their instincts?

                    "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

                    by GreenMother on Thu May 29, 2014 at 11:51:33 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  I second that. (4+ / 0-)

              The clever, experienced ones won't let on. No one couldn't have known. It's not the victims fault.
              This is why this blaming the victim culture needs to change. Really, guys, if you're half way decent, this isn't about YOU, either! Both men and women are more alike than we realize. If you are a decent guy and feel threatened because women feel threatened all the time.....exactly. That's exactly how we feel. Regularly. So, now you should get it, and be more understanding. Thanks.

          •  It's not that easy (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            villdyr, nomandates, Lilredhead

            There's always the fear of what he'll do if you say "No".  Women have been killed for rejecting/refusing a man.  Then there's the far more common, "Come on, please?" kind of reaction, where the man ignores a "No" from a woman and continues to press the issue (and press the issue and press the issue...).  Men feel entitled to a woman's time and company, and society teaches them that they are.  Society teaches them to ignore "No" and persist until she says "Yes".  All women, at one time or another, have dealt with male entitlement and we have heard so many stories from friends about their experiences and the experiences of people they know.  When we're out with friends, men approach us, and to avoid the hassle of dealing with a man who won't accept 'no'--we have no idea if he'll be like that but we're not going to take the chance because we just want to spend time with our friends, not deal with an asshole--we cut straight to doing whatever we have to do to get rid of him.  Giving out fake digits?  Just another tool in the arsenal.

          •  And walking on the street? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Lilredhead, Cassandra Waites, cai

            And working with male co-workers?  And shopping for groceries?  Are women supposed to not do those things, either?  We're not talking just about a dating context here and I think you're really missing the point.

            A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury. - John Stuart Mill

            by penelope pnortney on Thu May 29, 2014 at 09:42:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  If you feel threatened don't go there (0+ / 0-)

          You have good reason not to go anywhere near men because its dangerous, I couldn't agree with you more.

          World population threatens to double by 2050 so anything that prevents men and women from getting close enough to reproduce is a good thing right?

          If whats looming in our future is a survival of the fit test,
          its better to be green than a mother having to bear a rapists child because Republicans.

          "la vida no vale nada un lugar solita" "The Limits of Control Jim Jarmusch

          by rktect on Wed May 28, 2014 at 05:42:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You are spot on about women having to fear men, (0+ / 0-)

          but you miss the mirror image where the man has to fear the lying predator woman who accuses him of rape.

          I suggest doing everything in public, and NEVER get drunk or high or out of control, until you learn whether your potential boy or girl friend is honorable. NO sex until you are sure.  Even if it takes many months.

          I agree that both male and female predators can easily fool normal honest people.  This is why you watch them over time in safe public places, and never trust until sufficient time passes that you know they also are honorable.

          This takes self control. But safety always takes self control.  

          Fortunately, most predators are not patient and will drop you. Good - if he or she drops you for being careful, you know that was a predator.  Or they make a mistake - invite you to a place where you would be in their power - wild parties, crowds out of control, alone in their office late at night - then you know NOT to go, and to drop them.  

          IF you are from a rich and powerful family, the really dangerous predator will have endless patience.  A rich girl or boy thus has to avoid sexual relationships with ANYONE who knows their family.  One reason I am thankful my family is ordinary.  

          Finding an honorable partner of the opposite sex is HARD.  But it really is worth it.  And falling for a predator is much much harder.

          •  You want to mean well sooooooo bad and still (0+ / 0-)

            don't get it.

            Softly blaming the victim, is still blaming the victim.

            Instead of telling women how you think that can avoid being raped, why not tell the other males in your life, how not to rape women and why it's bad for all involved.

            "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

            by GreenMother on Sat May 31, 2014 at 04:01:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  This is what makes this mini-routine very sad (9+ / 0-)

    as well as funny. (His act is REALLY funny, if you listen to the rest of his clips.)

    And God said, "Let there be light"; and with a Big Bang, there was light. And God said "Ow! Ow My eyes!" and in a flash God separated light from darkness. "Whew! Now that's better. Now where was I. Oh yea . . ."

    by Pale Jenova on Wed May 28, 2014 at 07:10:14 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for posting. We need more on this. (24+ / 0-)

    Here's something in a similar vein from an unexpected source.

    Obama: Pro-Pentagon, pro-Wall Street, pro-drilling, pro-fracking, pro-KXL, pro-surveillance. And the only person he prosecuted for the U.S. torture program is the man who revealed it. Clinton: More of the same.

    by expatjourno on Wed May 28, 2014 at 07:15:18 AM PDT

  •  Brilliant. The issue in a nutshell. n/t (17+ / 0-)

    Tell Warner Brothers Pictures that Rooney Mara is #NotYourTigerLily.

    by ExpatGirl on Wed May 28, 2014 at 07:18:18 AM PDT

  •  Obviously a fake number (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xxdr zombiexx

    Aren't all telephone numbers ten digits now, or is that just us?

  •  Let toss this thought out there (8+ / 0-)

    With the NSA's massive, and massively intrusive and pervasive, spying on Americans programs, along with similar ones that other agencies like the CIA, FBI, DIA, State Dept, etc., surely have, all supposedly looking for potentially violent needles in our societal haystack, why haven't they been able to detect and stop rampage killers such as this one, when they've left such obvious warning signs in their many online ventures?

    Sure, he wasn't, technically, a "terrorist" (even though, of course, he was PRECISELY that by him actions and words). Meaning, he wasn't a turban-wearing "Islamofascist Terrorist" who hates us for our FreeDumbs! But even though it was 9/11, which was done in the name of radical Islamist terrorism, that supposedly put the country's vast spying apparatus on an accelerated path, you'd think that our government would have made the logical leap to viewing anyone with stated violent intentions as a potential terrorist, to also include, oh, Chechnyan cells, abortion clinic bombers, domestic slave traders, and would-be rampage killers who freaking post their intentions online!!!

    They can spy on and protect us from such clearly dangerous people as peaceful OWS protesters and investigative reporters, but not from violent nutjobs who own lots of guns and post online that they intend to kill people.

    Can our "national security state" possibly be any more incompetent?

    "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

    by kovie on Wed May 28, 2014 at 07:26:58 AM PDT

    •  The N$A has failed utterly to protect America (13+ / 0-)

      People post manifestos on Facebook and yet they are killing people well-before anybody does anything.

      Hell, the N$A can't even find an arsonist.

      it's like the program is just for ratting out political enemies.

      Legal means "good".
      [41984 | Feb 4, 2005]

      by xxdr zombiexx on Wed May 28, 2014 at 07:32:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's my point (7+ / 0-)

        They're either incredibly incompetent, or the point of these programs is less to keep us safe from violent people and organizations, than to keep them safe from law-abiding people unhappy with the current state of things in the US.

        I don't doubt that SOME of these programs are keeping us safe from SOME threats, but I don't at all feel confident that they're keeping us safe from all the threats we can realistically (and lawfully) protect ourselves from. Nor do I believe that the purposes of these programs are entirely honorable or what they're claimed to be for. I think that much of them, whether by design or "re-purposing", is to keep THEM safe from us, as in politically and legally safe, since many of them have been abusing their power for self-gain.

        So, between the incompetence, and the dishonest misuse of these programs, I don't feel as safe as I'd like to feel. Between the failure to predict and prevent 9/11 and the massive underestimation of what we were getting into in Iraq and Afghanistan and the massive screwups in both wars, the inability to detect and prevent some of these rampage killings, abortion clinic bombings, and so on, I don't have much faith in the ability or interest of our government to keep us as safe as they could be. We're governed by corrupt incompetents.

        "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

        by kovie on Wed May 28, 2014 at 07:51:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  there is a solution... (0+ / 0-)

          The NSA and other spook agencies (there are about a dozen of them in the good ol' free USA) need to adopt transparency. That's the only way to be sure they are not corrupt. There is nothing they actually need secrecy for, and much to be gained by opening their operations up. Think of all the good they could do -- all those brilliant minds correlating statistics on toxins, and dangerous social trends, connecting up information in ways that could help everybody.

          If they opened everything up the first thing that would happen is that they wouldn't be able to spy on us, the little people anymore. The second thing that would happen is that they would be able to let us all know the actions and intentions of the most dangerous entities on Earth: large corporations, political groups, and organised crime. Currently, individuals are spied on and the dangerous intentions of giant organisations are kept secret -- this is the opposite of how it should work.

          But of course, as we all really know, they've already been corrupted and don't work in our favor. Certainly, they've not actually caught any terrorists. Perhaps they've already been penetrated by the mob -- how would we know? There's no oversight or accountability, and it's not as if it hasn't happened before when the FBI, under Hoover was partying with mob leaders. And let's face it, the NSA's information is a golden lure for criminals. You can bet they are already among the top ranks.

          Transparency is the only way to clean them up. But they won't do that because they're already crooked. They'll try to maintain the old fetish for secrecy, even though open-source programming has shown us that the best security relies upon openness, and that secrecy merely allows bugs and other corruptions to fester.

          Maybe, one day, people will get the message: any national security that relies upon secrets is being done the wrong way, and is actually counterproductive.

          ----- The brain is the only organ where you'd prefer to be the donor instead of the recipient.

          by miriam e on Thu May 29, 2014 at 05:59:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Curious how the same people who rail against (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      xxdr zombiexx, happymisanthropy

      the surveillance state and the NSA on KOS are just fine with EXPANDING police powers if it will ensure the government can track every guy's communications for signs of misogyny, however they define it, and make sure theyre 100 percent safe 100 percent of the time.

      •  When some psycho posts comments (10+ / 0-)

        in an online forum saying how he intends to shoot and kill people, yeah, I want our government "spying" on them and taking appropriate action. These were public comments posted in public forums and didn't require any sort of illegal surveillance or even warrant. It was literally as if someone posted such things here, or told their neighbor of their intentions. At that point it's one's moral obligation to report them. So, sorry, your point fails.

        "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

        by kovie on Wed May 28, 2014 at 07:39:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That cop in LA last year: Chris Dorner (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          koNko, Sonnet, grover

          Christopher Dorner's Manifesto: Los Angeles Cop Killing Suspect Leaves Disturbing Writings On Facebook

          it's becoming a usual occurrence.

          N$A should pick up the pattern if I can.

          Legal means "good".
          [41984 | Feb 4, 2005]

          by xxdr zombiexx on Wed May 28, 2014 at 07:46:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  That would mean the govt or police monitor (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          happymisanthropy, Chrisfs

          everyone's Facebook, Youtube, and all other social media accounts all the time. Everyone's.
          And thats not the kind of monitoring I think most people, really, want. At least they dont want it done to THEM. Just to OTHER people.
          Theyd also have to be watching you in real time, since PsychoBoy only put up that video shortly before the deed.
          You might read he put it up in April, but that was only briefly.
          He got the flu or something so took it down until he was feeling up to a murder/suicide spree.

          •  If Google can monitor everything you and I (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            METAL TREK, churchylafemme

            and everyone else types and does online and cull a tremendous amount of (commercially) useful information from it, using automated software, why can't the NSA do the same, quite lawfully, by looking for a combination of certain keywords, with flagged postings to be reviewed by trained people to see if they're genuine threats or just someone trash talking with their buddies?

            I'm not talking about some Stasi-like agent reading our online comments about how unhappy we are with this or that government official or program and determining that we're dangerous deviants and taking some sort of action against us, but looking for comments like "I'm going to kill all the ... I can you mothereffers!", posted repeatedly. This is basic policing action, done digitally, no different from a squad car trolling the streets to see if anything looks out of place in a way that indicates possible criminal activity.

            "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

            by kovie on Wed May 28, 2014 at 07:57:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  very different form of scanning (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              The scanning that Google does for ads is very different than what you are proposing.  
              That is looking for keywords like 'butter' and putting an ad for butter on the sidebar.
              What you want is not only something that can understand intent, (I am going to kill someone), but also seriousness (I'm going to kill the pizza driver if he gets my order wrong again.) That would require humans reading the hundreds of pages generated each day, and then the next day, and every day and presuming we have address info for this person(which most internet posts do not have), we would have to send a police car to a person's house and say 'hey you wrote a threatening piece up on the internet', but couldn't do anything else, since that by itself may not be illegal.

              •  Software's gotten very smart over the years (0+ / 0-)

                Obviously there would need to be levels of human analysis before anything was done to prevent false positives, but you're describing software limitations that ceased to exist long ago. It's not just about raw processing power, but intelligent algorithms. And these two types of content analysis aren't as different as you might think. Google looks not only for words and terms, but pattens, connections and meaning. So would such anti-psycho SW.

                "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

                by kovie on Wed May 28, 2014 at 10:12:52 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  They already are monitoring social media. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            It's just that they only act when certain people post certain stuff or if certain people are targeted.

            Post something specific about targeting a high profile political leader and see how fast you have someone at your door.

            You may not want to put a frozen burrito in the microwave for lunch. They're likely going to be there before you can actually eat it.

            I have no problem with the LEOs monitoring stuff posted in public where there is no expectation of privacy. I want our political leaders protected from violent people.

            I just want to know, why doesn't the average citizen get the same protections?

            Yes, I know they look at my FB page. I know they read dailykos. These are public sites, the equaling of standing on the sidewalk announcing my thoughts. If I announce something that makes me seem dangerous, they should act.

            Let's not forget that in many of these cases, the gunmen (many of whom seem to have psychogical issues) end up dead. How is that in their best interests as well?

            © grover

            So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

            by grover on Wed May 28, 2014 at 01:05:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  They already collect all this. And do it illegally (0+ / 0-)

            and use it for NO GOOD. I want to know why police don't respond to complains about violent threats online.

            What the hell is up with that? Isn't that their job?

            "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

            by GreenMother on Wed May 28, 2014 at 04:04:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  One would think that qualify as probable cause (0+ / 0-)

          and would justify some kind of warrant. But there I go, thinking again.

          "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

          by GreenMother on Wed May 28, 2014 at 04:03:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  May I politely suggest... (9+ / 0-)

        that you read "Why Women Aren't Welcome On the Internet", to better understand how pervasive the problem is, and how extreme some folks are?

        •  I thought that death threats were routinely (0+ / 0-)

          followed up by the police or FBI to see if they were for real, and action taken accordingly if determined to be so. Why this shouldn't be extended to more broad-ranging death threats that don't target a specific person is beyond me. It's not as if we lack the resources to do this properly.

          Perhaps, in lieu of government doing it's freaking job better, people can set up watch groups to monitor and deal with such online and similar threats, akin to the Southern Poverty Law Center wrt racist violence, but focused more on misogynist violence, homophobic violence, nativist violence, etc.

          "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

          by kovie on Wed May 28, 2014 at 08:03:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, in fact they are not (6+ / 0-)

            followed up unless you can prove to the police that the person making the threat is in close physical proximity to you. And even then, usually the cops say they can't do anything until an actual assault is committed.  See every battered women's shelter ever.

            •  True but (0+ / 0-)

              You can report threats to the FBI's "cyber crime" unit, and it can generate things that may defuse situations.  (Their web site is as outdated as the term "cyber crime" implies but useable).  The FBI may sometimes give local cops a call.

              If you see a specific, credible threat made online, it makes sense to report it.  Sure, nothing might happen, but that's the worst case scenario.

              Elliot Rodger was visited by the cops, bluffed his way out, and went on his massacre anyway, but he was a highly intelligent, high social class, and intensely dangerous psychopath.  Not every ranting potentially violent jerk is functioning at that level.  

              A lot of them are heavy breathers who will crap their pants if the cops knock on the door, and abandon their plans.  Not mutually exclusively, a good number already have warrants out, are on parole, have prior records, have unpaid child support, were recently in a mental hospital, or otherwise have some characteristic that allows law enforcement to be more effective.

              For full disclosure I am a "civil rights absolutist" but making specific, credible threats is and should be illegal and I report that shit.

          •  No Kovie they are not. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

            by GreenMother on Wed May 28, 2014 at 04:06:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Then they should be (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              This should be a higher priority for law enforcement at all levels, and if it isn't people should pressure pols to make it one.

              "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

              by kovie on Wed May 28, 2014 at 04:40:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  We are still arguing the "merits" of legitimate (0+ / 0-)

                rape in this country. Thats like admitting to living in the Dark Ages. What you propose is 22nd century thinking. I will always keep pushing like I always have, but most days I don't have a lot of hope for that kind of productive positive change.

                "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

                by GreenMother on Thu May 29, 2014 at 06:11:31 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  We need to stop letting ourselves be dictated to (0+ / 0-)

                  and led by stupid, incompetent and insecure misogynists who are too dumb to tie their own shoelaces. They are now a minority, one of the few I believe we SHOULD discriminate against, for their and our good.

                  "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

                  by kovie on Thu May 29, 2014 at 06:45:13 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Not cool with it at all But that being said, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Kovie makes interesting observations.

        The minority Report comes to mind in that scenario. How could they figure out who was just having a bad day and who is a genuine threat?

        Even turning these people in before that is not preventing these crimes. The cops didn't respond to the dad in the latest mass shooting or so it seemed to me upon initial news reports.

        "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

        by GreenMother on Wed May 28, 2014 at 04:02:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  He literally posted that he was going to kill (0+ / 0-)

          people. How is that merely having a "bad day"?

          "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

          by kovie on Wed May 28, 2014 at 05:12:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Distinguishing between this guy and someone else (0+ / 0-)

            For example: How to use an HR. We have people who like to HR others because of disagreement or disapproval. Ideally it's supposed to be used to flag users who are being abusive or promoting abusive ideologies. But we also have people who HR as a manipulative tool to silence opposing views.

            That's what I am talking about.

            Yes, that guy should have been scooped up. But he wasn't. What you are proposing has also the potential for abuse. Some people fail to distinguish between a rant by a person who wishes no harm to anyone, and those who are genuinely dangerous and making threats.

            See also abuse of 911 system.

            I am not disagreeing with you entirely, but I am saying there are some caveats to your idea.

            "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

            by GreenMother on Thu May 29, 2014 at 06:15:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Obviously there would be levels of review (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              and various checks on the potential for abuse and misuse. Certain standards would have to be met, and a warrant would have to be issued to intercede. But anytime someone indicates their intent to kill people in a public place, be it digital or not, it needs to be followed up on.

              Not all of these rampage killers telegraph their intent so clearly, but enough do to make this worthwhile imo. We're not talking about predictive algorithms based on indirect clues and signs, but actual expressed intent to kill.

              "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

              by kovie on Thu May 29, 2014 at 06:49:18 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  He wasn't endangering the oligarchy (4+ / 0-)

      Feel free to post about killing, maiming or injuring other 99%ers -- that's not their mission.

      Hillary does not have the benefit of a glib tongue.

      by The Dead Man on Wed May 28, 2014 at 09:24:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ding Ding Ding We Have a Winner! THIS!!!!!!! (0+ / 0-)

        "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

        by GreenMother on Wed May 28, 2014 at 04:07:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Not that I would ever be for that level of privacy (0+ / 0-)

      violation, but I doubt our government can rub enough neurons together to ever come up with an idea even half that snazzy specifically where the NSA is involved. Besides there is no money in that.

      "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

      by GreenMother on Wed May 28, 2014 at 04:01:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  excessive irrelevant information (0+ / 0-)

      The Fourth Amendment isn't just valuable for protecting rights.

      It also, like most human rights, makes law enforcement MORE effective at identifying those who actually are breaking the law (the legislative branch creates the laws, of course).

      Even putting aside privacy, NSA policies increased information gathering at a far greater pace than information analysis intelligent decision making could possibly be increased.  

      If the cops are trying to bug Tony Soprano, and they end up being required to bug everybody in town and listen to everybody's irrelevant phone calls, that makes it far harder for them to keep up with Tony Soprano.

      Some doofus will make a stupid joke about jihad to his buddy and the SWAT team that was supposed to bust Tony's club will be diverted to sending a harmless doofus to Gitmo.

      Hysterically excessive spying is stupid.

      •  This has nothing to do with the 4th (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        as it involves monitoring publicly posted comments requiring no warrant or special access. And we're not talking about casting a wide net covering every posted comment on every obscure blog or forum (let alone, of course, reading private email sans a warrant), but rather monitoring sites known to attract people with violent ideation and fantasies, be they neo-Nazis, skinheads, the KKK, Islamist fanatics, ultra-Zionist JDL types, or misogynists. These represent a small fraction of web sites and commenters, and shouldn't require massive resources. There are probably private organizations that already do much of this, such as the SPLC, that could use some help from law enforcement.

        I literally don't see anything wrong with lawfully monitoring crazy and hateful people who say they want to literally kill others and sometimes do so.

        "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

        by kovie on Wed May 28, 2014 at 05:18:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I used to suggest to my teenage girl clients (9+ / 0-)

    that they give guys the Emergency Mental Health number, if they are not too sure of them.

    they always got an evil smile when I said that.

    Legal means "good".
    [41984 | Feb 4, 2005]

    by xxdr zombiexx on Wed May 28, 2014 at 07:30:31 AM PDT

  •  Also a must read (which compliments this) (9+ / 0-)

    Amanda Hess: "Why It’s So Hard for Men to See Misogyny?
    Men were surprised by #YesAllWomen because men don’t see what women experience."


    •  I sometimes wonder if women need to group (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sonnet, sethtriggs, LSophia, atana, GreenMother

      up and stop placating aggressive men, even if on an individual level, it can be self-protecting and rational. On a group level, it is not helping us. I think about the civil right's movement in the 50s-60s and Black folks saying, we aren't going to be afraid any more, we will not live in terror. (This diary about MLK partly inspired these sentiments).
      But women still get cowed and timid, and we let ourselves be walked all over, sometimes. We let the fear rule our lives. How can that square with demanding the respect we are entitled to?

      The most unrealistic thing about the new "Godzilla" is that there's no Tea Party character who blames the monster's presence on gay marriage -@OhNoSheTwitnt

      by MarthaPeregrine on Wed May 28, 2014 at 09:20:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was groped on a bus once. I yelled at the (8+ / 0-)

        attacker who just stared forward.  I was the one who was stared at.  No one asked if I was having a problem.

        THAT is #yesallwomen in a nutshell.

        •  not surprised at all. Good Girls Don't Make Scenes (0+ / 0-)


          "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

          by GreenMother on Wed May 28, 2014 at 04:09:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  We had that in the '70s (7+ / 0-)

        It was called the Women's Movement. But the Koch brothers and other Oligarchs shut it down. They put Rush Limbaugh and a thousands clones of him all over AM radio, and they sued or threatened to sue universities that taught women's studies classes that were for female students only so that they could speak their minds. They turned 'feminist' into a bad word along with 'liberal' and forced 'women's studies' to hide itself as 'gender studies'. And don't even utter that P word -- 'patriarchy'. It has been banned entirely.

        None of this was an accident. There were right wing think tanks involved every step of the way. They correctly perceived feminism as a real cultural challenge to the power of the old male billionaire who run this country... and now this planet. It had to be eliminated and it was.

        American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

        by atana on Wed May 28, 2014 at 12:36:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  It does bear noting that (6+ / 0-)

    far more males are murdered in the US than females - men, particularly black men are 77% of all murder victims. Murderous mens' main victims? Other men.

    That's not to say women aren't right to be wary of strange men, and its unfair that it is that way.... but no one should be under the illusion that men are by and large much safer in society. Men would be the main beneficiaries of reduced male violence.

    Rick Perry - the greatest scientist since Galileo!

    by Bobs Telecaster on Wed May 28, 2014 at 08:01:28 AM PDT

    •  This is a good point (9+ / 0-)

      But I would guess that far more men murder women than women murder women.

    •  It also needs to be noted... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      thatgeekinit, aztecraingod

      That college educated white women are not the most at risk for rape. Native, Alaskan, and multiracial persons are with a large amount of rape happening under the age of 18. Most sexual assault against a woman will not be by a stranger. It will be from someone the woman or child knows.

      So this idea that women have to be afraid of strange men asking for numbers to start a relationship is statistically silly. Most importantly, it aims to continue the narrative that men are power-mad, violent entities that are in no way concerned with the poor, defenseless, victimized woman.

      Women deserve better than to be reduced to victims and men deserve better than to be reduced to violent criminals.

      Crime is not the norm in our society. If all crime were equal in 2012, there were 1,214,462 violent crimes and 8,975,438 property crimes. That's 10,189,900 crimes in a country with almost 314,000,000 people. That means, assuming all crime is done by one person (which is a bad assumption) only 3% of the population could commit a reported crime.

      At some point, we have to yield to facts instead of focusing only on the constant barrage of negative from the ratings-hungry press.

      "Without alienation, there can be no politics" ~ Arthur Miller

      by jwalker13 on Wed May 28, 2014 at 10:10:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Some perspective is in order (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I won't dispute that women have more to fear from men than vice versa. Men are bigger and stronger generally but this cartoon has way more to do with irrational and disproportional fears implanted in us by sensationalist media coverage of crime than in actual likelihood that a man who asks for a woman's phone number is a rapist or murderer.  

        There are certainly proportional safety measures that don't require to you to be a paranoid nut.

        Frankly I find the cartoon a bit bigoted.

        Putting the shoe on the other foot, the guy might say: I hope she doesn't break my windshield and poison my dog if I don't call her first thing tomorrow.

        •  I honest think it comes from... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Feminism. Now, I know this is such a "male privilege" way to come at things, but feminism has moved as a school of thought. Where once radical feminism was simply a fringe, it has become mainstream. You see feminist groups labeling any and all non-feminist spaces as misogynist by virtue of not privileging female voices. It's really something.

          Misogyny has become not a word meaning "systemic and institutional oppression" but a word meaning "I don't like this and I'm a woman." Misogyny has moved from a social phenomenon to an individual phenomenon. Misogyny is now somehow individual oppression or a result of something (society) instead of the explanation of problem.

          I want to see feminism as a school of thought return to its roots of equalizing female voices with male voices. I want to see feminism return to the point where it advocates for something that can be achieved. It likely will not as the newest wave of feminism is being touted as the wave of feminism that is concerned with image representations and media.

          Feminism identifies misogyny as the problem. The only way I've been able to identify that feminism proposes to fix feminism is through changing men. They've co-opted, and in some cases claimed creation of, LGBT theory of allies. Men either need to change or become allies. Yet, many feminists identify that they don't want men included. Men need to be engaged, but they also need to just listen.

          So I'm convinced that radical feminism does not want misogyny fixed. That would make feminism obsolete. Instead, radical feminism (I just use the term feminism, but I always mean radical feminism) wants to keep women scared of men. Men are around every corner waiting, at every turn, to get women. The fix? Feminism, of course!

          I really do want to note that I am very much an activist of women's rights. Women deserve equal pay for completely equal work. Women deserve the right to their bodies. Women deserve to not be victims of violence. Women deserve to be loved.

          But here's the kicker and why I'm so critical of feminism as it currently exists in radical spaces: So do men. All people deserve to feel safe and able to reach their potential, and when we focus JUST on one sex or the other, we lose that goal and it becomes one sex AGAINST the other.

          On a personal note, I'm a gay southern white male. I cannot count how many times I've been told that I'm privileged by society. I really wish it were true that my white male part undid the oppression I've experienced as a gay male. I am, however, proud with how LGBT people have faced that oppression as a population. I feel like we've always valued others, and it really pains me to see LGBT rights activists (usually allies) who think "You're a homophobe!" is the proper response to everything.

          I believe that extremism is what's at play here. We are in an information age, and even the most radical of voice has a stage.

          (Sorry about the length! I'm wordy.)

          "Without alienation, there can be no politics" ~ Arthur Miller

          by jwalker13 on Wed May 28, 2014 at 05:10:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Mostly agreed (0+ / 0-)

            It is a bit sad when my fellow leftists spend pages complaining about how the latest episode of Game of Thrones, a fantasy series, is evidence of our own misogyny/rape-culture.

            From this tragedy, those same writers who were complaining about TV shows last week have something new to poke at for their own agenda. In the very same manifesto where he complains about not having sex, he complains about he didn't win the lottery.  He was mentally screwed up and he was obsessed with a fantasy definition of success that he could not achieve so he got angrier and eventually started planning his revenge, not just on women but on everyone.

    •  This isn't about that. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sethtriggs, atana, Sunnyhorse

      Very few people are victims of violence in general.

      However, for women, the threats are more pervasive.  There are verbal threats, gropes, stalking incidents that are more frequent and just as intimidating.

      Even down to the acceptance of violence in our common language.  Ever hear another guy say he wants to "bang a woman?"  

      •  Thats not even the worst of it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Did you know the F-word is from the German for "to strike."

        As long as your going to rewrite the dictionary for agitprop purposes, you'll have to replace just about every metaphor for genitalia and sex.

        •  Errr... German word: Streik? Schlagen? (0+ / 0-)

          I dunno.  I'd heard it was an abbreviation from victorian-era bobbies writing in their arrest books "For Unlawful Carnal Knowlege."

          What Germanic source are you suggesting?

          •  I've read (0+ / 0-)

            Wikipedia lists ficken and its root fuk which has something to do with striking/fist etc.

            My main point attempted through sarcasm was that when feminists start complaining about language, especially on how people describe sex,  they have basically abandoned any rational argument leading to a policy prescription that might actually lead to effective equal rights for women.

  •  I don't see the world as stark at the cartoonist, (9+ / 0-)

    but then I grew up in the 60's. Giving out phone numbers was a little safer than. As was sex with strangers - lot of new diseases out there now, mental and physical.

    Even back then though, I remember having to jump out of a moving car and another time a guy trying to stuff me in his trunk when I was hitchhiking.

    My advice? Don't hitch hike and don't give your phone number to strangers.

    But most of all, read Gavin DeBeckers book The Gift of Fear.

    I bought dozens of the book after I read it and gave a copy to every woman I know.

    Tracy B Ann - technically that is my signature. I scroll with my middle finger.

    by ZenTrainer on Wed May 28, 2014 at 08:32:25 AM PDT

    •  The biggest difference between (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sethtriggs, Be Skeptical, wishingwell

      Now and Then is the sheer number of people on the planet. People travelled and brought diseases with them. People raped and murdered. You just didn't hear about it as much. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. There are not that many "new" diseases. Mental classifications didn't invent cases of itself in people.

    •  The Gift of Fear (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Fantastic book -- Gavin de Becker really gets it. Can't recommend it highly enough.

    •  Sorry, I had to rant. (1+ / 2-)
      Recommended by:
      cville townie
      Hidden by:
      scoop, despaminate3000

      "but then I grew up in the 60's. Giving out phone numbers was a little safer than. As was sex with strangers - lot of new diseases out there now, mental and physical."

      Even though crime rates, STD transmission rates, murders, and rapes are all way the fuck lower than they were back then? Right. Want sources? Here, you too-lazy-to-google psuedo-intellectuals:

      Those who support equality will be happy to see the
      gap closing between women and men on this graph:

      Things sucked way worse back then than they do now. Turn off your goddamn TV which worships mass murderers and do some actual learning.

      You are right about one thing. Mental illnesses are way worse now, because our pal Ronald Regan closed the asylums. When you let people fall through the cracks without treatment, mass murder is what you get. But as always, the boomers' response is never treatment or help, or even just the common courtesy to not assume some random person is going to go on a murder spree. It's always "We need more police, we need more NSA, we need more guns." Fuck you.

      •  scoop and despaminate3000 (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        serendipityisabitch, Skaje, rduran

        Right for the wrong reasons.

        •  Disagree (0+ / 0-)

          The comment is rude but the point it's making is solid.

          We have an epidemic of fear fed by violence on TV news and in the movies, and it's disproportionate to the actual risks. America is the most fear-driven country in the developed world.

          Women, nor anyone else, should not live in fear because of the misconduct of others. But the problem needs to be in perspective; while it needs to be getting better, it's certainly no worse than it's been in the past.

          This environment of fear itself is itself sexist, whether it is caused by men behaving badly or by media reporting things that give a false impression of crime rates. (Of course, date rape was long underreported and was believed to be far rarer than it actually is, in small part due to being overshadowed by dramatic stories of stranger rape.)

          Driving eyeballs to the TV news or pageviews on sensational stories, in the long run, has a real chilling effect if it's dishonest, and that chilling effect causes problems disproprtionately for underprivileged groups. People should exercise due caution and diligence, but they deserve an accurate, honest portrayal of the risks, and that's not what we have. And it's about time we recognize that.

          Of course, fear sells a hell of a lot of guns too. The NRA likes it that way, very much so. (See Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine)

      •  I disagree so much but I do not know where to (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rduran, cville townie

        start. But we most certainly do believe in diagnosing and treating mental illness.  With the right combinaton of medications and prescribed therapies, many of the mentally ill can lead more normal and functional lives. The issue is that people fall through the cracks and too many are not getting the proper diagnosis and treatment needed. There are not enough social workers for support and follow up.

        And there are times the mentally ill just refuse to take their  medication or follow medical advice.  

        Now if the mentally ill person is deemed to a threat to himself or others, there are legal routes to go. The person can be involuntarily committed to a mental health wing of a hospital for observation for a certain set period of time.
        But you must get a judge to sign the order which often the judge will do once a therapist and psychiatrist recommend it.  

        Keystone Liberals on Twitter @ KeystoneLibs , Join PA Liberals at

        by wishingwell on Wed May 28, 2014 at 09:32:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Nailed it. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jayden, dewtx

    Bookmarked. Linked. Spot on.

    No one is coming to save us, the future is in our hands.

    by koNko on Wed May 28, 2014 at 09:09:43 AM PDT

  •  I remember the good feeling I had when my wife (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jayden, GreenMother

    and teen-aged daughter completed their self-defense training at the local police department.

    It's not something that they should have to worry about, but, in a world where worry makes sense, I'm glad they do.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Wed May 28, 2014 at 09:26:57 AM PDT

  •  She's already made a mistake (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Swig Mcjigger

    by giving him her real number.
     If that's what she thinks then it is stupid for her to even be around him, much less go out on a date with him.

    "The oppressors most powerful weapon is the mind of the oppressed." - Stephen Biko

    by gjohnsit on Wed May 28, 2014 at 11:55:58 AM PDT

  •  I've neevr seen a man take rejection (0+ / 0-)

    super badly except at a club when alcohol is involved. But of course I have limited experience with men hitting on me.
    Except with gay guys. Gay guys have been terribly grabby with me. But I'm also super big so I'm not terribly fearful of anyone being physically violent with me.

    by DAISHI on Wed May 28, 2014 at 12:14:59 PM PDT

    •  ThinkProgress has an article (0+ / 0-)

      about a new website called "When Women Refuse" which documents violence experienced by women when they have rejected men's sexual advances... link

    •  Rejection (0+ / 0-)

      I've been called names, chased and intimidated. When we were younger, a friend and I had to literally run away from a guy twice our age. We'd just been walking down the street; we weren't at a club or whatever. My friend and I are both tall, sturdy and savvy. I don't even know what smaller, cuter, more-timid girls and women have to deal with. Most of these interactions were with people on the street, not with people at work or school. I think the real danger with rejection involves disturbed people who know someone from work, school, a restaurant, whatever, and begin to fixate on them.

      Sounds like you're a guy, so you might not have access to these situations--most guys probably wouldn't throw a rejection-hissy in front of their friends unless their friends are like-minded losers. Maybe I'm wrong! I'm just speculating. But there are lots of guys who react badly.

      •  The real problem connected to rejection... (0+ / 0-)

        usually involves a person who has a poor self-image to begin with, who reacts to the perceived rejection with negative feelings, and then, BLAMES the other person for their emotional response, for their negative feelings.

        Blaming someone else for how I feel, for instance, means that I then don't have to be responsible for my emotional reaction.  As soon as I blame someone else for how I feel, then I will start trying to change the wrong person.

        There is also the possibility that a person can place all the blame on themself for the rejection, which is just the flip side of placing all the blame on another person.

        Either gender can have a negative response to what they perceive to be rejection.  It is the extreme emotional reactions to rejection that cause the problems, no matter which gender is having the extreme reaction, or where the blame is placed.

        How extreme the reactions are is usually based on how poor the self-image is of the person reacting.   The more one does not like or accept oneself, the more extreme the reaction is likely to be.

        If a person has learned to bury their feelings, then when they finally do react, it will be like a volcano exploding.  Then we are talking about rage, not just simple anger.  That is when things can get really crazy.

  •  1500 per year (0+ / 0-)

    That's apparently the number of women killed by husbands or boyfriends in the US each year -

    Everything below is a wild Ass Guess:

    Now  if you work out the statistics, and count the number of "Dates" or other encounters, your chance of being killed are pretty low on any single date.  150 million women, maybe half are of age and not no longer interested in dating.  Peel off 10% for women who only like women and you have 60 million women.

    Average a date every two weeks - so 26 encounters per year x 60 million women = 1500 killings = about one murder per million encounters.

    And yes, there's assault and rape and other bad things to happen on a date, but your chance of being murdered on a date is pretty low.

    The psychic toll is very real, but dating is mostly safe if you use common sense.

    "Emancipate yourself from mental slavery. None but us can free our minds." - Bob Marley

    by nightsweat on Wed May 28, 2014 at 12:17:26 PM PDT

    •  Don't pretend like a) women don't deal with (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      atana, Sonnet

      multiple routes of violent counters throughout her life.

      1) getting married doesn't mean you won't ever be stalked harassed or raped. It doesn't have to be by your husband.

      2. Most women have more than a handful of stories to tell, often a mix of close calls and closer still...

      we know better than to tell everyone everything, because in some places and circumstances, that paints a bigger target on your head. Slut shaming isn't just about having a bit of verbally abusive fun at some poor girl's expense, it's also how society decides who it's okay to rape again in the future.

      And bringing up the topic you have, in that context is equally insulting. Because it suggests a minimizing of the subject as if surviving any one of those sorts of encounters that there is some sort of hierarchy of fear.

      You just don't know. Period.

      Each number is a person. And his or her life touches countless others for good or ill, and that can include generationally too.

      Each person can represent (after the encounter--IF they survive) a battle with substance abuse, with mental illness, with destroyed marriages, with an inability to maintain adult interpersonal relationships, a battle for disability because they cannot leave their homes, with sexually transmitted diseases including CANCER and AIDs, with unwanted and possibly forced pregnancies, with a college or highschool career or professional career destroyed, with suicide, and more than that still.

      And for each person who died, a family ripped apart, with a hole left in it that will never heal. Children without parents, siblings pining for each other, lost great loves, inventions that were never invented, art that was never made, cures that were never found, a helping hand in a community, a friend in a time of need.

      So just stop.

      "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

      by GreenMother on Wed May 28, 2014 at 04:19:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  As a person who grew up in a family... (0+ / 0-)

        where physical and verbal abuse was accepted, if not constant, I understand the concepts of violence from a number of perspectives.

        For me, the bottom line is that all men are socialized to be men (in one way or another,) and all women are socialized to be women (also in one way or another.)

        In many cases, the socialization for men involves aggressive behavior, and for women the socialization involves passive behavior.  Or it involves both passive and aggressive behaviors, to some extent or another.

        The thing most of us are not socialized to do, or support, is to be human, in whatever form that happens to take.  We are also not socialized to be assertive, as compared to being passive or aggressive, or some combination.

        I really would like to see what this world would look like if every parent and every child learned to see themself as a human being first, and all the rest of the attributes as being sub-headings.  I'd also like to live in a world where assertive behavior was taught to everyone, and supported by everyone, from birth on.  

        Rape, abuse, and all the rest are based on disrespect, and passive and aggressive behaviors.  Assertiveness is based on respect, both for self and others.  

        To me, we would have everything to gain, and nothing to lose.  Only the sociopaths in control would think otherwise, and that would be their fear talking to them.

    •  Murder vs. Violence (0+ / 0-)

      Just because a low percentage of women are murdered doesn't mean the rest of us don't have scary or violent interactions that form our experience and remind us of other women who were less lucky.  Women are assaulted and/or raped every minute or so. Would it be less controversial for you if the woman in the comic said "I hope he doesn't rape and/or assault me"?

  •  Google Voice numbers could work in this case... (0+ / 0-)

    Something that CAN be used to reach you, but changing/dumping it has no real consequences to other people.

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Wed May 28, 2014 at 12:28:45 PM PDT

  •  Another problem is the problem of type (0+ / 0-)

    Since the large majority of women are raped by people they know. But on a gross statistical level men have about a 20% chance of being severely assaulted or robbed. So a man has about a 1 in 5 chance in his lifetime of being a victim of assault. I don't think you can let it dominate your thinking too much, but you do have to be cautious.

    I'm not victim blaming btw or saying women brought it on themselves because of what they were wearing. I'm just saying the human race is historically selfish and violent. Society is a vast illusion of civility on an animal species. Just be cautious in who you associate with, who you're alone with, and when you're alone.

    by DAISHI on Wed May 28, 2014 at 12:31:51 PM PDT

  •  Consider an alternative cartoon (0+ / 0-)

    The generic man is now a generic black man.
    The generic woman is now a generic white man.

    The exchange is the black man asking for service in a store, hoping he won't be turned away.  The white man hopes he won't get robbed and shot.

    In that context, the message turns around quite a bit, even though it's probably also true that, in such an exchange between a black man and a white man, the white is more likely to be harmed than the black (a justification I've seen above for explaining why women need to feel afraid and men need to be acutely aware of their fear).

    Regardless of that, we rightfully would see it as wrong to lump all black men together and treat them all as threats to our safety.  Why do we then tolerate this same kind of generalization of men with respect to women?  I'm a good white man, and I don't deserve to be looked at as a threat by default, basically to be shut out and shunned for no fault of my own, any more than my black friends do.

  •  I love a thought-provoking comic! (0+ / 0-)

    Well done Matt, well done.

    Y'know death and the devil sure got it easy these days. Souls come so cheap some people give theirs away! -Utopia

    by bfbenn on Wed May 28, 2014 at 03:45:23 PM PDT

  •  So, that's what it's like anymore... (0+ / 0-)

    I almost don't want to live.

    Ugh. --UB.

    The Republican Party is run by the KOCH BROTHERS.

    by unclebucky on Thu May 29, 2014 at 01:04:12 PM PDT

  •  Fear (0+ / 0-)

    "Men's worst fear is that women will laugh at them. Women's worst fear is that men will kill them."

    Here's a link to an interesting article that relates to some of the comments here. I don't like that the article addresses only women's part in violence against women, but with that caveat, the advice is solid, and it's advice about things we can actually control.  I am really into the idea of being straightforward (but not unkind) about dating prospects, as is mentioned in the article. It's an excellent point and not something that most people would come to intuitively, I think.

    BTW, I'm reading The Gift of Fear right now and it is very good. It is about fear, but it's also about manipulation, harassment, consent, communication and male-female interaction. I haven't finished it, but so far I'd recommend it to basically everyone. I'd guess it would help men understand how wary women often have to be, and it's helped me understand that we (women) have to be VERY CLEAR to get our meaning across.  I can't summarize the whole book--there are so many good observations and tools that it's hard to leave anything out. I just hope that more people will read it, and I'm giving copies to my family when I can.

    •  This is true, but leaves out the other side (0+ / 0-)

      of the equation.

      Women being physically assaulted is very serious, but relatively rare.
      Men being laughed at/humiliated is not nearly as serious, but virtually inevitable.

      It's 95 × 5 versus 5 × 95.

      I second your recommendation of The Gift Of Fear. It makes important points about how and when to take your fear seriously, but also about when not to. It's not good to be scared of everything, but it's not good to be not-scared of anything.

      Or rather, the opposite of poverty is not wealth; the opposite of poverty is justice. Melissa Chadburn

      by MrCanoehead on Fri May 30, 2014 at 07:20:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think of this a different way... (0+ / 0-)

        I do my best to not be afraid of anything, but I allow myself to be concerned about what I think is necessary to be concerned about.

        I also do my best to not worry about two things:
        things I have no control over,
        and things that haven't happened yet.

        I think that has simplified matters for me quite a bit.

  •  Did you ever wonder why this happens? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peregrine kate, nomandates, Akskeptic

    For men: Have you ever been on a first date with a woman and she agrees to a second date, then cancels on you by phone/email? It's because she really doesn't want to go out on a second date but was afraid to turn you down in person. It's not because she's indecisive.

  •  When I go on a date with a stranger I keep my I... (0+ / 0-)

    When I go on a date with a stranger I keep my ID in my sock. Sure it feels weird to walk on but I figure if they find my foot they can at least figure out whose corpse it belongs to (assuming my date doesn't have a corpse fetish in addition to being a rapist/murderer). Sadly not snark.

  •  Fear Nation (0+ / 0-)

    That comic speaks more to the state of fear Americans live in than statistically significant threats to women on dates.   We are dangerously afraid - of everything.

    Instead of living a life of fear, take precautions to minimize risk.    Meet partners through mutual friends, social clubs or work... so  you can have some confidence that they're not Norman Bates or Alex Forrest.  

    Although, as been pointed out most rape victims are raped by people they know - and most murder victims are murdered by people they know ... so I guess you may be safer hanging out with strangers ;)

    -- illegitimi non carborundum

    by BadBoyScientist on Fri May 30, 2014 at 04:29:39 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site