Warnie linked me to that blog a couple of days ago.  This woman is seriously warped.  Some of the best stuff is in the comments and her tl:dr rebuttals to some of the comments.

I don’t want you to
take this post personally, Cliff. I was intrigued by the article, and by your
deconstruction of it. I have comments on both below. Please understand that my
comments are on the arguments presented, not on the subject matter. I do not
condone rape, support it, nor do I condone the use of epithets like rape
supporter.

He
defends the current legal definition of rape and/or opposes making consent a
defence.

You
mean…except where it turns out it actually WAS a legitimate defence, because
the woman was lying? Except for that? Yeah.

-         
What she’s talking about, I think, is the
opposite of what you’re talking about. She’s talking about how a woman giving
her consent is not a defense for rape, because she believes that in some
circumstances, a woman will say yes to having sex (coercion, financial need,
etc.) that could still be construed as rape.

He has gone to a strip club.

So…we’re
equating women (generally somewhat scrawny women. Seriously, ‘count the
vertebrae’ tends to be a game possible at most strip clubs) working a pole
(snort) because they choose to with women being sexually assaulted. Okay then.
Just making sure I understand the level of “What in the fuck?” we’re going for
here.

-         
This is a fairly common statement from
radical feminists: women in our society have been raised as a sex caste, and
any attempt to objectify women sexually supports the sex-caste hegemony and
rape as a way of control.

He is anti-abortion.

Yeah.
Just yeah. Drink that in. This makes absolutely no fucking sense. Seriously,
why would anyone who actually IS a rape supporter (And I’m sure that’s a
popular social group) automatically be against abortion? How in the fuck do
those two things even fit together, aside from perhaps being next to each other
on the dartboard when this fucking genius started coming up with ideas?

-         
Once again, it stems from the statement I
made above. If you look at it from their point of view, that women are
societally engineered as sex objects for men, then the anti-abortion stance
takes another choice away from women and forces them to host another life in
their bodies as a symbol of man’s dominance over them.

He frames discussions of
pornography in terms of “freedom of speech.”

In
other words, beware Supreme Court justices : they’re just waiting for the
opportunity to jump you in a shadowy parking garage, rip your pants down and
jackhammer your ass while you cry.

-         
This argument of yours makes no sense. I
suspect this is on purpose to degrade the conversation. Her definition of “rape
supporter” is more of a sheep who supports a system that keeps women in that
caste, not actually someone who is looking to rape someone.

He watches pornography in which
women are depicted.

See the
same thing I brought up in the stripper portion of this post. Hmmm, talking
about a post having a ‘stripper portion’ kinda makes it sound awesome.

-         
Again, this section is about supporting
the notion that women are objects for the gratification of men.

He ever
subordinates the interests of women in a given population to the interests of
the men in that population, or
proceeds in discussions as if the interests of the women are the same as the
interests of the men.

Remember
that the next time you make the unbelievably sexist comment that all people in
a given population, women and men, need food to live. You pig.

-         
I think your argument is disingenuous
here, or maybe you actually misunderstand what she’s saying. I have serious
issues with what she’s saying here, but not on the same line of reasoning as
you use. First, she uses the word “interests” and you’re talking about basic
necessities. Second, I think (granted, this is interpretation and I could
definitely be wrong) she’s talking about trends and the interests (on
aggregate, I suppose?) of women versus those of men, so it’s not really about
any one point you could take that men and women have in common. Again, this is
just my conjecture.

 He argues that people (or just “men”) have
sexual “needs.”

Because
all that Science about the human race having a genetic imperative to breed
(which typically involves sex) appearing as an actual need in the psyche is
just a bunch of rape supportive hooey. It’s part of a massive global conspiracy
to shove a dick in every woman regardless of what she wants. Fuck you, science!

-         
I won’t argue either side on this one. I
haven’t read any “sex as a need” studies.

He sexually objectifies
lesbians or lesbian sexual activity.

While
the fact every single dude does this this helps prove the fact that we’re
really all a bunch of juvenile idiots (and we are), I absolutely fail to see
how some moron saying “Man, them lesbians is HAWT!” is the equivalent of the
same idiot proclaiming “Man, forcing myself in to those chicks would be HAWT!”
It does, however, prove unequivocally that this ditz is about as intelligent as
a ham sandwich.

-         
I think the “rape supporter” definition
above covers this one.

He discusses the “types” of
women he finds sexually appealing and/or attempts to demean women by telling
them he does not find them sexually appealing.

Because
women are all or nothing. And if you don’t find that one burn victim who
resembles a beached whale just as attractive as a lingerie model, you obviously
support fucking her against her will. Again, everyone finds different aspects
of other people attractive/unattractive. It doesn’t mean we’re rape supporters,
you thick retard, it means that we have unique genetics and different things
appeal to us.

-         
Sure, you don’t find burn victims
attractive, if you want to take it to that extreme, but do you make sure they
know you don’t find them attractive? As for the other side of the coin, if you
do discuss the traits you find attractive in females, then, according to her
argument, you are supporting the idea that women are objects in that way
because you are discussing their suitability for you based solely on physical
compatibility. Her argument is pretty absurd here, in my opinion, but I’ll get
to that.

Here are my arguments for why her post is not a useful
discussion:

“He defends the current legal definition of rape and/or opposes
making consent a defense.”

-         
This, to me, is just blathering and doesn’t
actually put an argument forward. It’s more about how support of a system in
place makes someone a sheep and doesn’t mean anything.

“He characterizes prostitution as a “legitimate” “job” “choice”
or defends men who purchase prostitutes.”

-         
I understand that her point of view is that we’ve
done this to women and that sex trade workers are there because of a horrible system
that has put them there, but it’s pretty arrogant of her to assume that her
point of view is the only one that is informed or truly sees the way of things.

“He is anti-abortion.”

-         
Again, she is assuming that her own stance is
correct, and allowing for no other viewpoints having an enlightened stance. A
good way to get yourself and like-minded people worked up, but not really a
good argument.

“He watches any pornography in which sexual
acts are depicted as a struggle for power or domination, regardless of whether
women are present.”

-         
This argument really is a leap. She argues that
since women are sexual objects in our society, any sex act that is depicted is
as much as committed against a woman. Very divisive, very dismissive of
alternative lifestyle, very good for riling people up who are already on her
side.

“He ever subordinates the interests of women in
a given population to the interests of the men in that population, or proceeds
in discussions as if the interests of the women are the same as the interests of
the men.”

-         
More than any of her other arguments, this one
is flawed. She jumps all over the consent issue, saying it’s not fair to paint
women with a broad brush of consent because there are mitigating factors, and
yet when it is convenient for her to, she paints all women with one colour of
interest. This one is a pretty vague argument against an opponent who really
isn’t there, if you ask me. All women don’t have one overriding set of
interests, and it’s demeaning to everyone to assume that they do.

“He promotes the idea that women as a class are
happier or more fulfilled if they have children, or that they “should” have
children.”

-         
Another silly argument against a nonexistent
foe. How many people have you heard discuss women as a class? More pandering to
her own group who probably have the idea of women as a class in their daily
conversations.

“He discusses the “types” of women he finds sexually appealing
and/or attempts to demean women by telling them he does not find them sexually
appealing.”

-         
This one goes as much toward the biology
argument as the other one you made, Cliff. People are attracted to different
types. It’s not just a physical, sexual matter. I like women who speak their
minds. I like women who are cynical and sarcastic. It’s a tendency toward
preference and I don’t know how it could have anything to do with one sex’s
domination of another.

“He defends these actions by
saying that some women also engage in them.”

-         
I can understand why she would put this one there,
because it helps to widen the gap between her group and anyone who thinks
differently, but there isn’t much basis in logic with this statement. It’s like
sports radio hosts who ask a question with a really obvious answer, but who “don’t
want to hear the tired old argument that [INSERT OBVIOUS ANSWER HERE]” because
it invalidates their argument. “I’m going to hit you with a stick, but if you
pick up that stick to defend yourself, I’m going to call you a bad name.”

She admits, in the comments, that she wrote
this for her radical feminist friends, and is surprised at how much it’s been
viewed. I had to crawl into a very awkward place to get where she is coming
from, and I’m happy to be on my way out. However, her point of view is not
completely invalid. She just sees the world differently than I do and uses
flawed arguments to further marginalize herself, which, I’m guessing, makes her
pretty happy. 

This list really over simplifys the whole issue of rape.  I as a woman would support rape according to the list.  I hate this man versus women crap and frankly I know idiots on both sides of the gender lines. I fully know there are women who are exploited and may strip or hook as a result of previous abuse, and or current drug problems.  This is a sad situation that shouldn’t be laughed at.  However….there are also MANY a female out there that has discovered long ago that they can use their bodies to gain wealth and power from dumb men. 

There are plenty of quality men out there that clearly understand that rape is terrible and I would hazard that they have the odd conversation about hawt chicks or porn.  Besides, I am sure that rape is a lot more about domination that sex.  There have been many famous guys that get all the “wootang” they want but still commit these offenses.

Scent of a Woman movie annoyed the crap out of me though.

I find viewpoints that are so completely different from mine fascinating. It would have been interesting to read something by her that was directed at normal people, to see how she argued her side, but this is so clearly an article that was meant for her fringe group that the inflammatory garbage doesn’t make for good arguments. 
I understand where she’s coming from, but where she and I disagree is at her basic core belief: Men dominate women with sexuality, men as a class are societally engineered to dominate women. If you don’t actively oppose that, then you support it. It, being sexual domination, which is where she gets the rape-supporter thing. She says you can be horrified by the idea of rape, but if you don’t fight the good radical feminist fight, then you are a rape-supporter. An interesting premise that leads to all sorts of discussions one could have, but their general rebuttal to women saying they’re full of it is that these women have been dominated so thoroughly that they’re cowed. Any differing point of view is looked at with more than scorn, anger, actually, since you’re propagating a system that wants to keep them controlled. 

Any system that does not allow for intellectual discourse with differing opinions is an interesting study, but not, IMO, worth much more than that.

I know what ‘blue waffle’ refers to. So no, I won’t be looking that
up…pretty much ever.

Indeed, go you!

Yeah, I don’t entirely get the outrage leading to what seems to be a
Slutwalk phenomena either. Could the cop have said it a little better?
Undoubtedly. But he didn’t seem to be saying “You brought it on yourself.”
in my opinion, either.