All PIV = rape??

[Flashbangandgone]

Stumbled across this article...

witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/

Seems not only to be strongly arguing that all PIV is necessarily rape, but is incredulous that a feminist could think differently! AIBU to think this is bonkers or has the virtually the whole population of women (who don't think this way) just been brainwashed?!

Vestal

This sounds akin to slavery to me, and I quote:

"All of men’s (alive and euthanised) belongings, property, resources and land will be confiscated from men and handed back to female care and supervision.

All men at least above 15 (or younger if very asocial) should live separately from women and children, on their own in small huts or studios, isolated from one another and scattered around so that women can keep an eye on them (they should never be in groups or packs, that would be illegal).

Their life expectancy would probably drop to the age of 40, but that’s how things should be. Women’s life expectancy without men would rise to 130 years at least

In order to keep all men and post-pubescent boys busy, we’d send them to clean up the vast amounts of detritus,
Send men off to do the dirty work.
No man will be allowed to take any decision without female guidance."

Replace the idea of moving men to a commune away from women with moving black people away from white people.

Not a thought provoking piece anymore and she'll get convicted under anti-racism laws

Or, replace the idea of moving men away with women, writing a manifesto about enslaving women, using them only to breed, etc, killing the ones that won't skeep with you.

Actually attempt to carry that out by trying to kill a load of women in a sorority, killing anyone who gets in your way.

And then thousands will rush onto the Internet to say- oh no he wasn't a misogynist, there was nothing politically motivated about that. He was mentally ill.

Has anyone considered that this woman is also mentally ill?

Or is it too good an opportunity to bash feminism?

That's a good point, she could have mental health issues. I'm not bashing feminism just that article.

I am always up for debate about anything so I would not stop views being expressed but there are loads of people out there who like to pick on one person who is a feminist or one view and say well that just goes to prove what an awful lot these feminists are.

Discussion of PIV is a great topic. Suggesting we might be better off without men or some men is fine too to discuss. I am not keen on censoring any topic for discussion.

Most us don't want non violent men removed. Men own 99% iof the world's wealth. I am not against women swapping and we own the 99% for the next 5000 years and then after that we could revert to equality. That is not unfair. It would be rendering things fair - righting the balance.

Or is it too good an opportunity to bash feminism?

Her writings can only do harm to feminism, and be used against it, which is why I've advocated all along that this kind of thing should be condemned by feminists...

Thanks Gunny. I haven't even read the article because I have a son and couldn't bear to think of anything bad happening to him but I've heard what people say she sas and it sounds as if she must have severe personal problems.

As an aside, that is often why feminists get so pissed off with accusations of man-hating. Most of us have sons who we love more than anything.

....there are loads of people out there who like to pick on one person who is a feminist or one view and say well that just goes to prove what an awful lot these feminists are.

No one, especially me, has said that on here. But if you want to accept her views as a legitimate expression of feminism, then you're only providing ammunition to those who wish to undermine feminism.

"Not true. Vestal for instance seems to be a witchwind apologist for instance."

That is an incorrect and self serving description of Vestal's most recent post, which, along with others, drew your attention to the everyday reality of actual harm to women vs this unpleasant piece of written description.

Remember the girls taken by Boko Harim, raped, impregnated and often left in a refugee camp after escape because they were no longer trusted.

An unpleasant description of a non-existent situation does not outweigh the actual global wrong of even worse atrocities than those described, the rape, murder, child marriage (aka child rape) and domestic abuse of women.

I am still puzzled by the idea that in order to prove myself a true/good/real/whatever feminist I have to roundly condemn and disassociate myself completely from an anonymous blog written 3 years ago. All a bit McCarthyist, really!

Who made Witchwind the feminist touchstone?

God this is tiring!

Now I know what Muslims feel like!

"Men own 99% iof the world's wealth. I am not against women swapping and we own the 99% for the next 5000 years and then after that we could revert to equality. That is not unfair. It would be rendering things fair - righting the balance."

See, in this situation, it's not about equality. It's about 'getting your own back' on men. Many people disagree with this attitude.

Yes, people can disagree.

As I don't have a hope in hell in getting women what men have it's not likely to happen that we can reverse things. I could live with 50/50.....

It's almost as if anti feminists spend ages scouring the Internet for anything to back up their idea of what feminists are. You would have thought they could find something a bit more substantial than a 3 year old blog.

Shows we've managed to keep The Msnifesto and Membership Rules well hidden, doesn't it?

Oops- sorry, we agreed at the last meeting that "membership" sounded a bit phallocentric, didn't we?

We would be in such trouble if women even attempted to get 50%

Thats why users thoughts are just fantasy

And its not a case of getting our own back, apparently 5000 of men Owning 99% of the worlds wealth is fine and dandy by the vast majority of the worlds population, there is nothing to see here, its perfectly fair. Well if thats honestly the case then men will have no problem swapping it over will they?

It's almost as if anti feminists spend ages scouring the Internet for anything to back up their idea of what feminists are. You would have thought they could find something a bit more substantial than a 3 year old blog.

That's just crazy talk!!!!

Bumbley, I want equality. I prefer sharing to taking turns, which are the two ways we manage fairness at school.

But, conceptually, why would women having a "turn" of the exact same dominance as men be "getting our own back"?

I just think if you recognise something as unequal and unfair and want to change that but then say that you want 'your turn' first then you've kind of lost the moral high ground a bit.

This article is to feminism as terrorism is to religion. They're not related at all - feminism is just a platform to promote a (really very fucked up) personal agenda. In that regard, all the feminists on this thread saying that the article ridicules us: you are wrong. The article is crazy. It is an extreme view.

Incidentkally, I browsed though the previous two threads on this blogpost (linked on first page) and again, no one agreed with witch wind but a good discussion was had on the role of PIV.

Kind of a sideways digression, but this is really irritating me: I would expect every reasonable Muslim to disavow Isis... Muslims who refuse to condemn Isis only fan the flames of islamophobia ... I can see the flaw in the Isis analogy... A much better one would be a mainstream muslim who refuses to condemn the views of an Islamist hate preacher

Have you ever heard the quote "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."? Ms Hall's words are often used to demonstrate the very principle of freedom of expression.

No Muslim is obliged to condemn the views of any other Muslim, or of anyone else they may disagree with. You aren't obliged to condemn the views of other Mumsnetters. Feminists aren't obliged to condemn the views of other feminists.

Does the fact that you haven't made an effort to publicise your dislike of SomeCrazyMumsnetter's opinions mean you agree with them? More to the point, are all Mumsnetters' posts devalued because we haven't all posted threads saying we disagree with SomeCrazyMumsnetter? Do we all 'bring down' Mumsnet by letting the crazy Mumsnetter have her say?

I would point out that you're attempting to thought-police and constrain the free speech of both feminists and Muslims - but I'm tired of your straw man and hope you'll take it off the thread.

You started a very interesting & nuanced discussion. It evidently wasn't your intent, but thanks anyway. The Straw Man disposal facility is ---> that way,

Good post, garlic.