Archive for November, 2013

I don’t get angry very often. In fact, I can’t remember the last time I got really angry. Like, truly, honestly, shaking-with-injustice angry. I get frustrated, who doesn’t?! People who drive at 40mph in a 60mph (that’s miles per hour for all you non-Brits), people who walk two abreast down the pavement so I can’t get past, people who suddenly stop dead right in front of me, people who don’t say thank you if I’ve had the common courtesy to hold a door open for them all piss me off, but it’s more a sense of annoyance that I feel not anger. In those situations I usually just let off a bit of steam and then forget about it. If I’m in the car I might call them a cunt or something, but generally I move on pretty quickly, I don’t have the energy to stay angry for long, it’s totally counter-productive.

But then, every so often something comes along that really does make my blood boil. When that happens, I genuinely don’t know what to do with myself. It happens so rarely that I barely recognise what’s happening. Sometimes it feels like fear, I don’t know why but I will tell you one thing, it’s entirely uncomfortable. I don’t like it, in fact I downright hate it. Sure, I can get frustrated enough to tear chunks off someone if need calls for it, but true anger? Nope, don’t know how to deal with it, the ‘red mist’ as they call it that clouds judgement and makes you do stuff before you’ve realised what you’re doing. Never had to deal with it properly, which I see as a positive.

So what bought it on, this feeling of anger? Well, before getting on to the reason I’ll let you know how badly it’s affected me – I am currently in the middle of another blog entry about something completely different that has now been put on the backburner. That’s something else that never happens. Generally when I start a blog entry I finish it before moving on. Not this time, I’ve decided to start a new entry immediately.

This picture, originally posted by the Facebook page I Don’t Need Feminism (https://www.facebook.com/idontneedfeminismbecause?fref=ts ) and immediately raised my ire:

http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y472/johnsalmonworld/IMG_2711_zps9b6a560b.jpg

I did a blog about rape culture a few weeks back and the blatant ignorance of female-on-male rape was one of the issues. In that blog I talked about the way female-on-male rape was presented in films and television. Well, here we have a prime example of what I was talking about. In fact, I couldn’t have asked for a better example of feminist hypocrisy if I’d have written the bloody thing myself.

So, here’s the deal. I don’t believe we live in a rape culture, and I’ve alluded to why I don’t think we live in a rape culture before, but I’ll state it outright now – the statistics are far too sketchy and inconsistent. There’s the famous 1 in 4 rape statistic that’s been around for 30 years. That’s been debunked numerous times. There’re statistics coming in left right and centre that present one idea about rape, and then another set that present a contrasting idea. False rape accusations range anywhere from 2% (which is the feminist default statistic) to 40% (which seems incredibly high). You’ve got feminist memes coming out the wazoo that have been shown to be distorted, government statistics that are manipulative in the way they are presented and the questions asked, we’ve got politicised reports about the rape ‘epidemic’ in India, yet I’ve got Indians on my Facebook friends list who present stats that either contradict official opinion, or highlight inequalities in other areas that are on par. We’ve got people objecting to advertising campaigns because they ‘clearly’ depict gang rape (https://johnsalmonsworld.wordpress.com/2013/11/24/dolce-and-gabbana-they-love-a-bit-of-gang-rape/ ) and there are so many differing opinions on what actually constitutes rape that it’s hard to keep up.

This meme highlights what I believe to be one of the key points in my refusal to believe in rape culture – the hypocrisy of rape reactions. We are constantly bombarded with stats and images about how prevalent female rape is, to the point that we get phrases like ‘stare rape’ and ‘telepathic rape’ being bandied around with no hint of irony or sarcasm. Is it any wonder we live in a ‘rape culture’ when we can just assign the word rape to any sexual encounter? But, when it comes to male rape, the feminists are decidedly quiet, only breaking their silence to exclaim that ‘women can’t rape men’.

Bullshit. Women can, and do, rape men. And boys. And other women, funnily enough. But we don’t hear about that, because to admit that anyone else can get raped, aside from women, removes the feminists ability to cry victim at every opportunity. Why would you want anyone else to get a slice of the pie when you’re used to having it all to yourself? Doesn’t make sense, does it?! If I was a feminist I’m sure I’d be fighting tooth and nail to make sure I kept the monopoly on what does and doesn’t constitute rape as well.

But anyway, I’m losing track. The real point of this blog is the insane, blatant hypocrisy in those comments. Now, I haven’t read the article it’s responding to as that picture is all I have, but you honestly don’t need to read the article to understand this point.

These 3 women (I’m going to make a wild assumption that they’re women due to their screen names) are talking about a man getting drunk at a party, having consensual sex with a woman and then dating her for a few years. I have no problem if that is, indeed, what the article is about. Getting drunk and having sex is a decision you have to live with. As has been stated  in the past, you can’t get out of a drunk driving conviction by claiming you were intoxicated so were legally unable to make an informed decision about driving. The same goes with drunken sex, if you get yourself to a state where you give consent and have sex with someone you don’t want to, well, sorry, that’s your bad. You can’t complain about that, chalk it down to experience and get on with your life.

And before feminists absolutely crucify me, notice I used the magic word ‘consent’. If a woman, or a man, passes out through alcohol and somebody abuses them, that’s totally different to having consensual drunk sex.

The problem I have with the women in this meme is that there ignorance knows no boundaries. They use the ‘erection equals arousal equals consent’ as a valid argument when a basic knowledge of male anatomy tells you that, regardless of situation or stimulus, men can pop a boner at pretty much any point (http://goaskalice.columbia.edu/can-erections-happen-when-youre-not-sexually-aroused ). I’m a teacher and I’ve had some pretty embarrassing boners sometimes, not because I’m sexually aroused by children, but because I’ve been sat at my desk at break and it just so happened the fabric of my underwear rubbed my meat-and-two-veg the right way.

Getting an erection while passed out drunk doesn’t mean you consent, nor does it make what happened to any less rapey. Men get several erections during the time they are asleep (also unconscious) so it would appear that ‘erection equals arousal equals consent’ is a very simplified way of looking at the whole situation. Is it possible to rape a woman if she’s passed out drunk? Surely the fact her body lubricated itself during the act proves it was all consensual? See how ridiculous that sounds.

They also try to play down the incident as ‘sexual assault’ which, by their reckoning, is just as bad as rape but is less ‘melodramatic’. Does that not imply that when women accuse men of raping them they’ve just over-reacting? After all, what’s in a word? If the only reason rape as a word exists is because semantics are the way to elevate an assault beyond anything that is deemed ‘bad’ and into something deemed ‘fucking horrendous’ then we can safely assume any time a woman claims to have been ‘raped’ we should merely assume she is trying to make it out to be worse than it is, probably for more sympathy. Again, starting to see how ridiculous that sounds?

The worrying part, for me, is April’s response. Again, she plays to the ignorant assumption that a man getting it up is a sign of coherence and arousal, therefore implying that he wanted it. She also accuses him of ‘trivializing’ rape, because he wasn’t drunk enough to stop himself getting an erection. It’s a dangerous path of ignorance that, to make one assumption based on another assumption clouds the real point. If your argument is based on something that you yourself don’t truly understand then how can you expect me to take what you’re saying seriously? Having an erection doesn’t automatically equal sexual arousal, therefore the fact he got an erection doesn’t preclude this incident from being rape. That’s like me saying every time a woman orgasms during rape (which does happen) it validates the encounter as a consensual sexual experience. See how ridiculous that sounds?

Casey then decides to chime in with, what I believe is, the most monumentally stupid point in the whole meme – because he was blacked out, her story is more reliable than his. Did she really just imply that we should be listening to the potential rapist’s side of the story and just accepting it? Can you imagine the fury if a man tried to pull that defence? “Well, she was passed out but she did yes before she passed out, so I fucked her. Technically, since she was passed out and can’t remember what happened, my side of the story is more reliable, despite the fact I’m a rapist and of course I’m not going to admit to raping someone.” See how ridiculous that sounds?

If this was an isolated incident, or just some random gaggle of girls trying to justify a woman raping a man so as not to have to accept the fact that women do rape, I’d be able to pass it off. But the thing that got me so angry, the thing that made my blood boil, that made me experience that red mist that I never experience, is the fact this particular conversation is so at odds with this one:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/photo-public-sex-act-rape-woman-article-1.1487092

that it makes a complete mockery of the feminists attempts to define ‘rape culture’.

Let’s take a look at the difference, and hopefully it’ll be clearer why I don’t accept ‘rape culture’. In the first meme posted, a man gets drunk, gets an erection, apparently consents to sex, wakes up having not remembered anything and believes he has been raped. Women in comments try to justify the situation by saying stuff like “well, it could have been rape, but seeing as he was unconscious and got an erection I’m not sure if I’d count it as rape, it might be considered sexual assault, but we don’t need to break out the almighty ‘rape’ word, not yet anyway.”

In the news article, a woman gets drunk, in public, and has apparently consensual oral sex with a fellow student. In the morning she reports it as rape. Were people trying to justify the situation? Were they saying “well, she was drunk but the man said she consented, and he wasn’t as drunk, so we’ve got to believe him really.” No, of course they weren’t. Instead, we get people like Allie Erwin who automatically takes the side of the woman: “It was rape. She reported it to the police as rape.” No ambiguities, no grey areas, no “well she appeared to be smiling, so maybe it was consensual, just straight out, automatic acceptance. She reported it as rape, therefore it was categorically, unequivocally rape, no questions asked.

So there you have it, rape culture. When it comes to a woman claiming she’s been raped, general consensus is that she’s telling the truth, or at least general consensus according to feminists. But, when a man claims he’s been raped by a woman, we must try and find a way to explain it, we must try and rationalise how he ended up in that situation and see if we can someone apportion the blame on to him, convince him it wasn’t rape but his own stupidity in allowing himself to get drunk and pass out. Isn’t that what the feminists call victim blaming?

Chancery claims she doesn’t want to be demonised for ‘daring to question his testimony’. I completely agree, when alcohol is involved we should be able to question how a situation got that far, we should be able to scrutinise someone’s actions that night. If the end result is “well, you got drunk and did something stupid” then you chalk it up to life experience and you move on. That should apply to both sexes, at the moment it appears that we are only able to question it when its men accusing women of rape. When a woman accuses a man of rape that logic disappears, if we question her testimony we are misogynistic rape-apologists who should burn in hell.

That’s the feminism ideal for you, if you’re a woman then get as drunk as you like, be as stupid as you like then claim rape and you’re sure not gonna be fighting that battle alone. However, be a man, get drunk, do something stupid and then claim rape and, well, good luck trying to convince anyone you weren’t just a horny motherfucker whose erection was proof that you loved every second of it.

Rape culture, in a nutshell. Congratulations, feminism, you’ve made it all about you.

I said in my previous entry that this blog would continue as long as feminism existed. I knew I would be back with another entry before the end of the week, I just didn’t know I’d be back this quickly, or with something that so perfectly demonstrated the feminist victim complex. As it happens, this particular meme dropped straight into my lap, or, more accurately, straight in to my Facebook feed.

I also said in my previous blog entry how the internet was the tool that allowed me to exit some dark times in my life, and it’s doing a great job of keeping that darkness away. Every time I think we’re losing the battle a little more, I see responses and comments from my 101 ‘friends’ that drive me further from the abyss, comments, from men and women alike, that are logical, truthful, well researched and so full of well-reasoned arguments that it’s hard to find any fault with them. There are so many pictures, videos, memes and general ignorance-pushing sites and pages on the world wide web that sometimes it’s hard to forget all the good that is being done.

This is the focus of this particular entry:

http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y472/johnsalmonworld/youhavedeclaredwar_zps333cb2c8.jpg

It popped up on my timeline today, and immediately this blog was pretty much writing itself, thoughts swirling around in my head like the clearest fog I’ve ever seen. Sometimes it’ll take a couple of days after seeing one of these ridiculous memes before I can really formulate a cogent response, a response that actually makes sense and addresses everything I want it to without coming across like the ravings of crazed loon.

So let’s get straight to it. I’m going to ignore the headline, Hell Hath No Fury, simply because I want to get into the four bullet points but, suffice to say, this meme directly implies that only women have been affected by whatever draconian laws this meme is talking about.

You see, it’s so general and non-specific I don’t even know what it’s talking about. Is it an American meme, and English one? There’s mention of an election day but, to my knowledge, there’s no election coming up in either country, so does that mean it’s European? South American? I have no idea. I’m going to assume the overall vagueness of the whole thing is intentional, the idea being that it can be trolled out whenever there is an election coming up, sort of a ready-made-victim-complex-promoting meme from some sort of cache of memes that are ready to be hand-picked by whichever bitter feminist desires.

So, for those who haven’t heard the intro phrase, it goes like this: Hell Hath No Fury Like A Woman Scorned. Basically, don’t bitch with women because, when shit goes down, Hell will seem like the comfiest holiday camp you’ve ever seen. If this is indeed a bitch at whichever government happens to be in power it automatically plays the victim by directly implying that only women are affected by whichever laws are in place. Seen as there is no specific, identifiable country to which this applies, my sympathy-ometer is already faltering.

On to the first bullet point: ‘You have limited my access to crucial women’s health services’. Seriously, that’s it? And what exactly would those ‘crucial’ health services be? You see, with no specific country or government named as the recipient of this meme it’s hard to know where to go to refute it, so I’ll just do it generally. If we take ‘crucial’ to mean things like breast cancer, well breast cancer research receives a fuck-ton more public and private funding than pretty much any other cancer, even prostate cancer, which affects more men per yar.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/05/breast-cancer-receives-much-more-research-funding-publicity-than-prostate-cancer-despite-similar-number-of-victims/

You have an entire month dedicated to raising breast cancer awareness and, in the UK, you have The Race for Life, a women-only (how about that for some discrimination) event that raises money for breast cancer research. Totally limited.

Men are fighting back though, Movember is getting bigger year on year, so at least people are beginning to see how important prostate cancer is, right? Right? Ah, well I forgot this is a world inhabited by feminists, and they just can’t let men have their own way of promoting things:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/25/movember-declared-sexist-racist-transphobic-at-canadas-sorry-imitation-of-harvard/

http://jezebel.com/forget-movember-im-celebrating-dinovember-1463804633

Yep, Race for Life is totally not discriminatory, but a bunch of men growing daft moustaches to raise money to research one of the deadliest cancers is totally evil. And not just that, but let’s acknowledge Movember before casually dismissing it and writing an article about what one set of parents does throughout November. Yep, just ignore the growing worldwide phenomenon and focus on one family. Totally cool.

And what about this Irish website that states smear tests that screen for cervical cancer are free:

http://www.cervicalcheck.ie/

That’s totally limiting isn’t it.

You see, there’s every chance that, wherever this meme comes from, ‘crucial’ women’s health services are limited, but with absolute no identifiable information to suggest where that country may be there’s absolutely nothing of any worth. Breast cancer receives more than double the funding of the male equivalent cancer, smear tests are offered free for women between 25 and 60 and mens attempts to raise awareness of cancer is marginalised and dismissed. Should we not be angry too?

On to point two: “You have vilified and punished me and my children because I am a single mother.” It must be so hard having 100% access to your children while being able to so easily deny the father any rights at all. Then, to add insult to injury, you get to claim child support which, for all the father knows, will go on new shoes and not the child. That’s if the child is actually the man’s you claim it to be. If you wanted to, you could cheat, get pregnant, divorce your husband, tell him the child is his, wait 2 years, admit it’s not and he would still have to pay child support and alimony. If the demands are too much for him to manage, well you can just call the police and have him sent to jail. And you claim you’re being vilified and punished?

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/22082942/man-pays-15-years-of-child-support-for-daughter-who-isnt-his

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/child-support_n_3672474.html

http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2013/03/25/jailed-for-nonpayment-of-child-support–but-its-not-his-child-n1548325/page/full

Point number 3: “You have tried to redefine rape in an effort to reduce my access to abortion services.” For this one, I’m not entirely sure what they’re trying to say. Are they saying that if you’re raped you can’t have an abortion? I don’t get it. Abortion is legal in the Uk as long as it’s before 24 weeks, it would appear it’s legal in the USA:

http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_law/

So, if abortion is, in fact, legal in both the US and the UK what does re-defining rape have to do with it? Surely if you get pregnant through rape the service is available for you to have an abortion? Again, I must be missing something. Either I’m completely ignorant of this particular point or the third bullet point in this meme  is so inexcusably false that it simply being made up to try and perpetuate the victimhood complex.

And lest you think I’ve forgotten, if we’re going to talk about re-defining rape laws, let’s spare a thought for the male of our species. It took over 80 years for the FBI to change their definition of rape:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-01-06/fbi-rape-definition-adds-men/52398350/1

But do you know what’s still sickening? The fact that, even after 80 years, the rape law still allows women to rape with impunity. See, as much as that article claims the new law accounts for male victims, it really doesn’t do a good enough job. The new definition counts for all types of penetration, orally, vaginally and anally, but mentions nothing of envelopment, of forced penetration. There’s still no way for a woman to, legally, rape a man, despite the fact that there are numerous stories of it happening. If the only thing that stops a woman raping a man is the wording of the law do you not concede that the re-defining of rape in fact hurts men more than it hurts women? If abortion access is as available as my research suggests then, perhaps, it is not as sore a point as this meme makes out.

Point 4: “You have publicly ridiculed me, and called me names to get me to sit down and shut up.” I honestly can’t refute this one, not because I concede the point, but because I don’t know where to start. There’s absolutely nothing that suggests any evidence. While that’s true of the whole meme, there’s absolutely no evidence throughout to back up any of the outrageous claims, this particular point is screaming out for something to help give it credence. Who has ridiculed you? How have they done it? What have they called you? Why would they want you to sit down and shut up? This could be about anything, you could have been an utter douche who deserved to be told to shut up. With absolutely nothing to suggest what/where/why/when these things happened there’s absolutely no way I can take it seriously, absolutely no way I can try and counter it. I could be here all day thinking of possible scenarios in which she has been shot down and publicly shamed, and I could still get it completely wrong. So I’ll leave it and that and move on to the closing argument.

“You have declared war on me and the people who love me. On election day, it is a war that you will lose.”

Them there be fighting words. Well, they would be if I knew what election they were on about. Generic election day? Someone must be able to help me out. No sources, no justification, no examples of what they are claiming, and then, to top it off, some random mention of election day. If it’s alluding to a past election well, guess what, all the links I provided are still valid. Smear tests are free, breast cancer receives more than twice the funding of the comparable male cancer, rape laws allow women to rape with impunity and have been expanded to allow women to claim more acts as rape, alimony and child support payments, along with custody rights, inevitably go to the mother, even if the man they are claiming payments from is not the father. If he falls behind, guess what? That’s right, he goes to jail, again even if the kid isn’t his.

You could argue that I’ve missed the point by picking links from different countries. Well, I’ll counter that by saying that, without any single identifying feature of what country this meme is talking about, I am not going to be able to pin it down specifically, so taking a range of info from around the world just means I can try and refute this meme in numerous ways.

The galling bit is the last sentence. War? A war on women? You have the cheek to create that meme saying a war has been declared, when it’s clear that there really is no war. There is barely even a battle. Typically feminist victim complex, they highlight all the atrocities they see committed against their sex with no single shred of evidence, nothing to back up their claims, not even an anecdote that, while pretty much a non-starter, would at least have given some form of context to this whole thing. As it stands, this plays off as a very whiny, entitled child who has decided it’s not fair because they think they’re being discriminated against for the gender.

You think there’s war against you? Try telling that to the man who goes to prison for not paying child support to a child that isn’t his. Try telling that to the thousands of men who develop prostate cancer, only to find out their disease isn’t as funded as breast cancer, despite being just as deadly. Tell that to the man who was drugged and raped by a woman, only to find out the worst she can get charged with is sexual assault. Tell that to those men and see how your pathetic victim complex is received. You create a war to gain sympathy, you falsify your suffering  and present it as truth, clamour to gain the special privileges you already have, monopolise something as deadly as cancer by promoting your own fundraiser and suppressing anything you don’t happen to agree with.

To feminists out there, there is a war, but it is not against you, and it is one that you will not win.

Let me let you in to a little secret; I don’t like feminism. There, I said it. That is not a surprise to anybody who has been reading this blog since I started it over the summer. The thing is, the way this blog has turned out is a million miles away from where I envisioned it when the idea first popped in to my head. Of the 25 entries on John Salmon’s World, 23 are about feminism, or, more accurately, how I think feminism is bullshit. Of the remaining 2 articles, one is about my views on the evolution of language (which kind of includes some feminism moaning, but is about language in general) and the other is all about my cock (yep, I really have written an entry about my cock, read it before you judge). Of course, that was back when I saw John Salmon’s World as more than what it’s become. You only to look at the ‘welcome’ page to see what the original plan was. I mean, I even mention TV, films and video games! What on earth was I thinking?!

Truth is, this blog was always going to be about my frustrations with feminism, I set it up because I was tired of reading an online article and feeling absolutely trapped that I had nowhere to vent steam. I knew I couldn’t do it on my actual Facebook page as I’ve posted stuff of an anti-feminist nature before and got the typical, ignorant, anti-feminist-equals-anti-woman rhetoric from the braindead morons I went to school with.  The original plan was to post other stuff I’m interested in, but somehow I got sidetracked and, before I knew it, the blog was all about feminism.

I’ve touched upon my relationship in previous blogs (most notably in the one titled ‘confession time…), but I’ve never really explained the full story, why I came to hold the views I do and why I felt the need to create a completely new identity with which to share those views (which, as I state in ‘who am I’, is currently pulling me in two distinct directions). I’ve put it off and put it off, only because I honestly couldn’t tell you when it started, just that there’s always been something there, something deep inside my subconscious, that constantly gnawed away. Every time I saw a news report on TV, or read a newspaper article that was feminist-heavy I could only think “that can’t be right.” Call it not accepting my privilege or whatever, but it was always there.

I was born in 1986, even as far back as I can remember there were certain things that bugged me. Episodes of sitcoms that embarrassed men for laughs, TV soaps that constantly portrayed men as the rapists, abusers, paedophiles, episodes of CSI that, on the rare occasion a woman was the criminal, would explain away the crime by giving her some sort of sob story, while not giving any of the men the same reasoning, episodes of TV dramas that would have the man off having an affair while the wife suffered alone at home trying to raise the kids, cartoons where the male characters would be scruffy, socially awkward, bumbling oafs while the females would be street-wise, smart and successful. I’m not saying there weren’t women that were portrayed stereotypically, there probably were, but for a 16 year old boy who was constantly being reminded of how bad it was to hit a woman, or how we needed to empower women and free them from ‘oppression’, how the Spice Girls were showing that girls were every bit as good as boys, if not better it became a little depressing to see that no-one seemed to care about what I was going through.

“Yes, boys have body issues too, but they aren’t as important as girl’s issues.” That’s the impression I got growing up. Boys have it bad, girls have it worse. Every news article would focus on the things that affected more girls – anorexia, bulimia, body image, rape, etc, while completely ignoring things that affected more boys. That was my teenage life, feeling like I was some kind of sick arsehole because I was beginning to feel bitter at the fact girls problems seemed to be promoted more than mine. I was suffering too, I didn’t know it at the time, but I suffered. I suffered the debilitating social stigma of being ginger, of being fat, of being short and, perhaps worst of all, having, shock horror, an average sized penis. Let’s just say in the whirlwind of hormones and emotions that being 16 brings, I was alone and isolated.

Girls had the feminists to fight their corner, I had nothing, nobody. I was, and still am, tee-total, I listened to a lot of European metal music at the time when American nu-metal was dominating the airwaves over here, I played rugby and had a shit-ton of friends, but never went into town with them because I didn’t enjoy it. I needed somebody to tell me I wasn’t alone, somebody to tell me I was the same as them, that I wasn’t an anomaly, an outcast, a mistake. I had nobody.

As I got older, I began to realise who I was, what I was, a little bit more. I have the internet to thank for that. I have the internet to thank for a lot of things. Because none of my close friends listened to the same music as me, I found solace in online forums of the bands I liked. That saved me, I could talk to like-minded people about the music I listened to, people who were from all walks of life, all countries, all races and ethnicities. Whatever darkness was swirling in my life disappeared as soon as I found that release. That same darkness wouldn’t reappear until the months before I started this blog, but more on that later.

When I was 18 I went to University, and that’s where I got I really understood the feminised education system. Most of the female lecturers were open feminists, staunch supporters of their cause, to the point that, within the first couple of weeks, one had publicly berated a girl in one of my seminars because she came from a traditional, Christian background and she wanted to stay home and raise children while her husband went to work. In front of the entire seminar, in front of people she barely knew, she lambasted her as if she were a child. A university lecturer shouting down an 18 year old girl for expressing an opinion, the very thing that Universities are supposed to encourage. I was shocked, I couldn’t get my head around it, utter disbelief. I don’t remember much about my first year at University, it was a pretty rotten time due to the house I lived in and the people I shared with, but I’ll never forget that particular incident. That was perhaps the first time I realised I wasn’t a massive fan of feminism. Again, I still didn’t fully know why, but that perhaps was the first spark that not all was well.

Aside from the open feminist lecturers, I did a module about gender and America. I can’t remember the exact title, but we had to study Falling Down, Glengarry Glenross, Thelma and Louise and A Streetcar Named Desire. Needless to say, every single week we would learn about how masculinity was dangerous, about how the women had to try and break free of the oppressive chains of men and get out on their own, how Falling Down was a prime example of how patriarchy hurt men too, how the only way Thelma and Louise could escape their oppression was to take their own lives, how Blanche’s rape by Stanley was just another example of man imposing his sexual will on whoever he wants. Whenever someone tried to come up with an opposing view, that perhaps Blanche wasn’t raped by Stanley and the ending was left to interpretation for a reason, they were shot down, told they were wrong, told that it was pretty obvious that that’s what was happening, that Blanche was a victim of male oppression and not just an alcoholic paedophile who had to run away because she was despised.

Funnily enough, at that time, the girl who had been berated in that first couple of weeks was now my girlfriend and we spent a lot of time talking about how one-sided and one-dimensional that entire module was. She agreed, but didn’t feel as passionately about it as I did. I got that a lot, people’s responses were “yeah it’s a bit of man bashing but oh well.” I don’t think I did very well on that module to be honest.

It was while I Was at university (and I’ve mentioned this in previous blogs) that I saw the infamous “boys are stupid, throw rocks at them” ring binder in Woolworths. That was the first time I can remember thinking “you know what, if that was a girl there’s no way this would be allowed.” Something clicked that day and I can look back now and see that was the turning point. Before, all the feminist dogma that had been slowly seeping into my life, from TV to film, radio to newspaper and the education system that was guiding me down the feminists path without me even realising it would have just seeped into my brain, now I was beginning to see it for what it was. After seeing the ‘boys are stupid…’ binder I did do a little research on the internet, but all I found was Masculinist stuff, which, having read through some of it, didn’t seem like what I was after. Back to the drawing board.

But then I left University, worked through a couple of menial jobs and then got my teaching degree. Again I’d gone back to that semi-asleep state, the one where I was constantly feeling the gnawing sensation in my mind somewhere, something telling me that all was not as it seemed. I think I went through that fog for the next few years as it’s only really as we got into 2012 that I can remember seeing through the feminist bullshit again, only this time there was no ‘click’ moment, no sudden epiphany where all the memories of University came flooding back, just a slow awakening, almost as if waking up from anaesthetic with my conscious mind playing the part of the doctor trying to rouse me – “ah yes, he’s coming round, come on, wake up, there we go, open your eyes, slowly, slowly, don’t rush it, yes, there we go. Welcome back.”

And the darkness was back, the absolute frustration at seeing people buy into whatever was being spoon-fed to them by the media, that men were rapists, abusers, paedophiles, molesters, harassers, thugs, devils, demons, anything other adjective you could think of. Men were scum, apologise for being a man, apologise for being a white man, apologise for being a white man who lets other white men beat and rape women. The hypocrisy of feminism was perplexing me again, how could women be strong and independent and yet rely on feminism to fight their battles for them? How could a movement who claimed to be for equality be so demonising to the sex that they also claimed to help. It didn’t inspire me to join their cause, it bred hatred and contempt. The problem was, the hatred and contempt that I harboured for feminism bred hatred and contempt within me. I was 16 again, confused, alone, not knowing where I stood or who I was. Was I evil? Was I the problem? If I disliked feminism did that make me a woman-hater? I’d had a girlfriend, I couldn’t be a woman-hater if I’d had a girlfriend. Then I began to think about our relationship, 3 years we’d been together and I had to consider that I’d unknowingly used my privilege to manipulate her throughout those 3 years. I kept telling myself it was stupid, but I couldn’t get away from the ‘facts’ of life, 1-in-4 women would be raped in their lifetime, every 9 seconds a woman is beaten by her husband, etc, etc.

Then, the epiphany I was waiting for arrived. I saw the 1-in-4 statistic on Facebook and knew I had to research it. I was worried, typing 1-in-4 into Google was either going to validate my feelings of discomfort, prove that the stat was false and the misgivings that had eaten away at me for nearly 9 years was something positive, or it was going to prove the stat was true, and I had to accept I was a monster simply for being born male.

I can’t tell you the flicker of joy that went through my whole body when the first result that came up was titled “the 1-in-4 rape myth”. Even if it did turn out that the stat wasn’t false and that site was just by some nutjob misogynist at least it would prove someone had taken the time to do some research. As it turns out I got exactly what I was looking for, what I always knew was true – the feminism was manipulating everything, manipulating it right in front of our eyes.

The internet had saved me when I was 16, removed the fog, the darkness that was threatening to engulf me and, would you believe it, it had done it again nearly 11 years later. The internet can be a dark place at times, but for me it has proven itself more than I can ever repay it. I wasn’t afraid of my views any more, I was still apprehensive about fully embracing them as I needed to do more research, but the gnawing was gone, the discomfort that had weighed on me for years pretty much evaporated there and then.

And then I made the best decision I’ve made for years, I typed in ‘feminism’ on the Facebook search bar. One of the first sites to come up was Exposing Feminism (I’ve mentioned them before, a lot). I gave it a click and haven’t looked back. That’s the site I’d been after for years, logical, well thought out, respectful refutations of feminist clap-trap. Everything I’d thought over the previous few years, every time I’d rolled my eyes at a news report that victimised women, every time I’d seethed in isolation because I was talking to brainwashed white knights was being laid bare on a page on Facebook. If the fog was lifted before, it was completely dispersed now. I had what I’d spent so long looking for – confirmation. Confirmation that I wasn’t a woman-hater, that I wasn’t an arsehole who used my privilege as an excuse to blind myself to what was going on in the world. I could finally see I wasn’t alone, other people, a lot of people, thought the same as me. It was liberating.

It was a long time, perhaps another year, before the idea of this blog came to me. While I was a fan of Exposing Feminism, I still had to deal with my life, going through the motions, seeing people blindly believing the feminists whenever the cropped up on TV spouting off the same old nonsense time and time again. Despite the fact I’d found like-minded people I still had to accept that they were a minority. One thing that did keep me going was the fact that there are so many women on my Facebook friends list, and even who aren’t, that contribute to anti-feminist stuff. If I’d been surrounded by men the questions might not have completely gone away, knowing that women are anti-feminist too just shows that the ludicrousness of feminism as a movement is not lost on those people that it claims to help.

Since starting this blog, and the Facebook page connected to it, I’ve met some brilliant people that I suppose, in some weird, online-community-thats-not-weird-at-all way I could call them friends, if you can class someone you’re probably never going to meet and who has never seen your face aside from a cropped photo of your Lemmy-inspired chin beard as a friend.

Point is, it took me a long time, and a lot of searching, to understand my feelings towards feminism. Too long I think. I needed the internet when I was 16, I needed it again when I was 26. I’m 27 now and I finally think I understand my own feelings, my own beliefs and why I hold them. I could have done with that knowledge when I was 18 and I watched in shock as that University lecturer victimised an 18 year old girl simply for not sharing her opinion. But then, when has feminism been about anything other than shouting down those that don’t agree with you, when has it been about anything other than pushing their own agenda on the unsuspecting public, marginalising anything that doesn’t compute with them? I can now see feminism for what I’ve always, subconsciously, known it to be – a sham of a movement that is only concerned with getting its own way and to hell with anything else. The internet can be a dark place, full of scummy people doing scummy things. For me, I owe it everything. Twice.

So there you have it, my life and feminism. The blog I started to be about the things I enjoy in life has turned into a rather narrow-focused look at the hypocrisies and downright misinformation that modern feminism gives us. I’m thankful for the attention it’s received, and I’m thankful for the people on Facebook who are constantly giving me the platform to get this blog out there. Without them, I’d struggle to make any impact at all.

The blog will carry on for the foreseeable future, at least for as long as feminist keeps spouting its bullshit rhetoric, as long as it keeps serving up the juiciest of hypocrisies for me to have a look at. As long as feminism keeps breathing, so will John Salmon’s World. Promise.

Let me state this extremely clearly – I am an advocate of ending violence against women. It’s truly horrible, it’s not something we should be seeing in 2013 and I’m glad there are like-minded people out there who share my views, it’s heart-warming and helps restore a little bit of faith in humanity.

That all sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? Yeah, I deplore violence against women, and I don’t see any reason why, in this day and age, I should be alone in my views. It’s not something that needs a lot of thought, you don’t hit women end of.

But…yes, there is a but, you must have seen it coming. I also deplore violence against men, and children. You see, violence isn’t a gender specific thing, despite what a certain group of people would have you believe. Numerous studies have shown that reciprocal intimate partner violence occurs at extremely similar rates, yet we are constantly bombarded with statistics that prove there is a ‘war on women’, that women are the primary victims of domestic violence, that women need to be protected from evil men who think nothing of getting home from work and beating their wife or girlfriend, just because.

It doesn’t work like that. One of the, many, reasons that it pays to keep the domestic violence myth going is because it brings in a shit load of money. There are women only shelters all over the world, yet it’s extremely rare to find men only shelters, and some domestic violence centres actively refuse to take men. You know things aren’t completely kosher when Erin Pizzey, the woman responsible for opening the first women’s shelter, accuses feminism of ‘hijacking’ the movement and making it all about them.

So, what’s the point of this? Well, for a society that, supposedly, is currently engaging in a ‘war on women’ it would appear that we take violence against women pretty seriously. If the numerous shelters weren’t proof enough, there are advertising campaigns, hotlines and laws that help protect women. It’s a bit strange for a society to both wage a war and protect the enemy at the same time.

But anyway, on to the main point. I’ve already done a blog on domestic violence, so this is more of a companion piece as opposed to something completely different.

There’s been a definite shift in public thinking in the last few months, at least to my eyes anyway. When I was younger, and this has been going on for as long as I’ve been alive, I was surround by the old ‘there’s absolutely no reason to hit a woman’ rhetoric. No matter what the women did it was never ok, never, to hit a woman. Women were to be protected and cared for (which, according to feminists, is massively sexist). However, I’ve encountered a number of videos in the past few months on Youtube that show how the bar is shifting. The argument no longer centres on the ‘you should never hit a woman’ motto but is now more complicated. There are plenty of videos out there of women displaying violent behaviour and people retaliating.

The interesting is the response. Before, I’m sure the majority of people would have automatically blamed the man for being a thug, called him scum for hitting back. Now, though, there seems to be a shift towards the thought that women deserved what they got in return. We live in a culture that demands equality for women, while still trying to hold on to some of the privileges that protects them. We hear feminism claiming women are just as strong, independent and able as men, yet will still balk at the idea of a man retaliating with violence when threatened with violence. It’s a hypocritical stance to take, either women can hold their own with men or they can’t, either they can handle being in the same situations with men or they can’t. When it comes to violence the phrase ‘if you can’t take it, don’t dish it out’ comes to mind.

Below are three videos that show how complex this issue has now become. In all three videos the women are the main instigators of the aggression, often starting with verbal abuse before resorting to physical violence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6KFWiidiJo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kyPotqOc0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM7tg0J06ok

We’ll start with the first video, a Cleveland bus driver punching a woman who is verbally assaulting him and, we think although it’s not abundantly clear, physically assaults him. IF you skip to 14 seconds of the video you get my first ‘shake my head’ moment. Ana Kasparian, the presenter, warns us that “It is a difficult video to watch if you’re uncomfortable seeing a man physically assault a woman.” What about if I’m uncomfortable seeing a woman verbally and physically assault a man? Does that not come into it? Am I supposed to just accept the woman being violent but be shocked and uncomfortable when the man is violent?

The second video, a woman punches a man in the nose (causing him to bleed, which you can see later in the vid) and is then herself punched to the ground. Now, you could say that it was a cheap shot by the man, and you’d probably be right, but it’s the entire attitude of the woman that is the problem here. Right before she punches him she says “what are you gonna do, hit a girl?” That right there is a fine example of the impunity women think they have when it comes to violence towards men. She taunts him with the ‘you wouldn’t hit a girl’ mantra before physically assaulting him, possibly breaking his nose. She’s perfectly happy to dish out the violence full in the knowledge that he won’t hit her back, only to be surprised when he, in fact, does hit her back and puts her on her arse. It’s this assumption that still pervades our society, women can hit if they are pissed off but they don’t expect to be hit back. Explain to me how that fits into the ‘equality’ argument.

The third video, a group of people trying to get in to what looks like a cafe or something similar. What’s interesting, again, is the first instance of physical violence is actually by a woman. Skip to around 30 and you can clearly see one of the women kick the man wearing the green hoodie in the balls. His response is to try and punch her. It’s not clear if he actually connected, but what is clear is the response of one of the people behind the camera. “Fuck you, you little cunt. Nah, that wasn’t on man, that wasn’t on. The guy in the green just fucked over some girl.” So it’s perfectly fine for her to kick him in the testicles, but not ok for him to retaliate by trying to punch her in the face? The girl then tries to punch the man in the face, which leads to him punching her and breaking a glass window.

All three videos show 2 things:

1)      Men are beginning to stand up for themselves in the face of female aggression.

2)      People, particularly women, are desperately trying to cling on to the privileges that benefit them.

So what’s caused this attitude that they can fight with impunity? They want equality, but only when it allows them to benefit. They don’t want to be treated as equals when it comes to violence. Seeing a man hit another woman makes him a ‘cunt’ or is deemed ‘uncomfortable’, yet a woman verbally or physically assaulting a man passes by with little comment. Is this another victory for feminism? Draw the focus of the ‘battle’ to wherever they want it to be, point to flawed and inaccurate statistics that help further their cause whilst ignoring everything contradicts them? Sounds like the usual feminist tactic to me.

Those three videos can all be explained away by the feminists though – oh, they were all isolated incidences. That doesn’t mean it’s representative of how society is going. NAWALT, you can’t say all women are violent on the basis of three videos when it’s clear that violence towards men happens rarely and violence towards women happens all the time, etc, etc ,etc

But then we get this video. A clip from Thor 2, massive, multi-million pound film from Marvel, one of the biggest companies in America and, right now, enjoying unprecedented success with film adaptations of its comic books.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ61yFJOH7s

So, in this clip, Thor returns after some time away (I haven’t seen the film so don’t know how long he’s been gone, it’s been 2 years since the first Thor film, but not sure if it’s the same amount of time in the film) and is immediately slapped by Natalie Portman’s character, twice. Why? Because she didn’t get to see him enough, how about that for some narcissistic bullshit. He claimed he would return, but it’s taken him an inordinately long time to do it. His reason? He was saving the 9 realms from war. Not only that, when she bitches that she saw him in New York, he then has to defend the fact he was saving the fucking world! She states quite clearly that she saw him in New York, yet is too stupid to figure out why he was there? Seriously?

This is how accepted violence towards men is in society. She feels she can slap him, not once but twice, because he didn’t come to see her, despite the fact he’s spent pretty much every minute away from her trying to save the world, so she can carry on living. What an ungrateful bitch. At which part of the film do you think it would be ok for Thor to slap her back? Yeah, never. That’s what pisses me off so much about this entire double standard, and I know it’s ‘only a film’, but it’s a film that’s making fucking millions of pounds at the box office, and it’s a superhero that is instantly recognisable to millions and millions of kids. Basically, if you do a good thing and try to save the world but don’t make time go and see the woman you love and spend time with her, well then you’re an arsehole who deserves a slap. Yeah, fuck that.

The good thing to come out of these videos is that the comments are no longer defensive of the women. Perception of female on male violence seems to be changing. There now seems to be an air of ‘well she started it, what did she expect?’ which is quite heart-warming in a way. And no, before you start, this is not advocating violence towards women, not at all. What it is doing is advocating the idea that you can’t pick and choose the bits of equality that you like, the bits that keep you protected, and chuck the rest. If you’re for equality, true equality, then you have to understand that gives a person the right to fight back if they are physically assaulted, regardless of gender. Benevolent sexism is still sexism, and the fact that women are sticking to this sexist double standard in order to commit violence and then get away with it just goes to show how little they actually care for true equality.

What I want to see in the future is not ‘you can’t hit me because I’m a girl’, not ‘she started it, so she deserved to be hit back’, but something along the lines of ‘don’t fucking start hitting people in the first place’. This shouldn’t be about who started it, or who is in the right for retaliating, we should be at a place in society now where violence is seen as the stupid, dumb, pathetic thing it actually is. If you can’t handle being out and about, involving yourself in real life without resorting to violence because a bus driver isn’t going where you wanted, or somebody pissed you off at a party, or you aren’t being let in to a cafe or, god forbid, your boyfriend was off saving the world, then perhaps you should just stay indoors and give the rest of the world a reprieve from your moronic behaviour.

If we are ‘engaging in a war on women’ by shaming a man for defending himself against violence he himself didn’t start, what the fuck kind of war are we engaged in towards men?

Ah, fashion. As someone who owns 3 pairs of jeans, a couple of hoodies and t-shirts that are pretty much exclusively adorned with comic book superheroes (bear in mind I’m 27) I don’t think I’m really in a position to write a blog entry on companies like Dolce and Gabanna and Gucci. However, this blog entry isn’t about fashion, it’s about the adverts used to promote the companies, in particular one advert for one company that has caused something of a stir.

This particular ad is quite a few years old now (2007 I think was the year it was released), but the point I Want to make is, once again, about double standards when it comes to the portrayal of violence towards men and violence towards women.

Now, I’m the first to admit that, when it comes to advertising, I’m pretty simple to please. If you want me to buy your chocolate, create an advert that has someone eating and enjoying your chocolate. Pretty simple, so I’ll never understand those adverts that are so obscure you don’t know what is being advertised until the product shows up. You know, the car ones with the inspirational quotes that make you feel extremely positive about life, until you realise it’s only an ad about a Ford Focus, or the numerous Guinness adverts that (as brilliant as they are) have as tenuous a link to beer as possible.

Fashion ads fall into the latter category, sometimes I can’t figure out why the advert looks the way it does or what the message is, to the point that I very rarely get excited about designer clothes or perfumes. I make good money in my job, but I’d rather spend it on what I feel comfortable in, rather than something that will do my street cred an improvement. Ok, let’s be honest, I have no street cred, so no number of expensive, flashy designer suits is going to change that. Besides, I’m short, fat and have shoulder length hair; I’m really not their target audience.

But, on to the offending ad. There’s already been lots of discussion about this one ad in particular because of the ‘controversial’ nature of it. Apparently, it ‘clearly’ depicts a gang rape. Yep, it’s the Dolce and Gabbana gang rape ad of 2007:

http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y472/johnsalmonworld/IMG_2685_zpsc2a5253b.jpg

I’ve already said I find fashion ads a little confusing, and this is no different. Ads like this are always full of beautiful people in various states of undress. While I get the sentiment behind it, it’s not something that I’ve ever found convincing or compelling enough to encourage me to buy their clothes. As I said, I’m not their target audience, so I can look at these ads from a completely detached viewpoint.

Do I think this is implying gang rape? Of course I don’t, you should know better than that after 20 odd blog entries. Unfortunately, not everyone shares my views and, even more unfortunately, the reaction to this ad has been entirely predictable and in such a manner that I absolutely despise.

I said in a previous blog I hate it when people pass off their opinion as facts. I find it arrogant that they assume their views to be so grandiose and insightful that people will just accept them at face value. I try not to do it here on this blog, everything I write here is clearly my opinion (unless I outright state it when I think I’m right, which I’ve done once) and a lot of what I write is responses to already existing internet idiocy. The response to this ad is full of people saying stuff like ‘this advert clearly depicts gang rape’, ‘it’s promoting violence against women’, ‘look at the oppression in this advert’, etc, etc, etc.

I’ve said numerous times before that one problem I have with feminism is the absolute refusal to look at anything in a neutral way. There’s absolutely no desire to debate or discuss anything that they see as questionable. In their mind, there’s only one way to look at something – their way. If you don’t agree with them, or you try to present a counter-argument that is no less valid then you’re in for a monumental battle. A battle you will inevitably lose. Once a feminist decides their opinion on something, that’s it, they’re right, you’re the misogynist areshole who just wants to subjugate and control women like some Neolithic prick. Never mind that your point might actually make more sense or be based more in truth than hysteria, if you disagree, you’re scum. And that’s not just men, feminists are more than willing to throw other women under the bus for disagreeing with their views, they’re awesome like that.

So, back to this advert. The advert was actually banned after people complained. Yeah, that’s a society that hates women for you, they complain about a questionable advert that implies 4 men want to gang rape a woman and it gets banned, The Patriarchy got served, big time!

So, if general consensus is that this advert implies, and perhaps even promotes, gang rape, why do I disagree? Well, first of all, no-one looks too upset about it all. Even the woman seems to be showing little concern for the situation. Plus, she’s thrusting her hips upwards, towards the man pinning her down, who, funnily enough, seems to be the only one of the men who is actually looking at her. The other three seem to be looking in other directions. Possibly the topless man on the right is looking at her, but he could equally be looking at the man who’s pinning the woman down.

Of course, I could be wrong, Dolce and Gabbana, the massive high fashion designer company, could really have decided one day that what their ad campaign was missing was the subtle implication of gang rape, but without hearing that from the company themselves, I’m going to assume they were going for something a bit less rapey and a bit more kinky.

You see, to me, this advert could easily be presented as something altogether more kinky than simply ‘OMG her hands are pinned, it’s rape.” See, for all the shouting the feminists have done about sexual liberation and the freedom of women to be able to indulge in their wanton sexual desires, they still don’t like any women engaging in sexual activities that they don’t approve of. This is a prime example. Have they ever thought that, perhaps, in some weird, off-planet, non-feminist way that, possibly, some, not all but some, women like the idea of being pinned down? Is that not beyond the realm of possibility? I don’t think it is, there are all sorts of stories out there on the internet about women who like being submissive, who like to hand control over to their partners in the bedroom, who like being controlled. Now, I’m not saying that this is definitely what this advert is doing, and I can certainly see why some people might get up in arms about it, but my point is simple – interpretation does not equal fact. Just because I see it as something a little bit kinky, a woman getting aroused by the idea of being controlled and dominated by her partner, or even multiple partners, does not mean I hold the monopoly on that view. It doesn’t mean I can go around and say shit like ‘well clearly she’s loving it.” All I can do is interpret the advert in such a way as to present my views. If someone thinks it’s rapey then that’s absolutely fine, but don’t you dare presume that everyone else agrees with you. It’s a big assumption to make. It’s a false assumption to make.

So I don’t agree with the idea that this advert promotes gang rape for the simple reason that there are too many other interpretations that make as much sense. People go on about rape culture dominating western society, but let me put this question to you – if you are always seeing rape in everything you encounter on a daily basis, even in things that can be interpreted in different ways, are you, yourself, not promoting rape culture? By immediately seeing everything in the most negative way possible, are you not only furthering the idea of rape culture? Are you not so intent on proving rape culture’s existence you are forcing yourself to see it in every little thing? That’s called confirmation bias. If I wanted to be offended at every little thing I encountered it’d be fairly easy to do. That’s what I don’t like about rape culture, it’s a self perpetuating nightmare. People think we live in a rape culture, so they subconsciously force themselves to see rape in every advert or TV programme around, which only furthers their belief that we live in a rape culture. And so the circle continues.

As I was trying to research articles that ‘prove’ this advert is promoting gang rape I came across an interesting image, an image that was obviously taken at the same time as it is the same setting, same men, same woman and yet has a completely different edge to it:

http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y472/johnsalmonworld/IMG_2684_zps9636a7a7.jpg

Interesting how there’s no pinning down on that picture and, once again, the men seem to be looking anywhere other than the woman. Now, you could make the assumption that, in the story of the advert, this picture comes first and the ‘gang rape’ picture comes second, which is a nice progression from ‘lets-hang-out-at-the-pool’ to ‘lets-find-a-nice-woman-and-then-gang-rape-her’. But, there’s also the possibility that the woman is the one doing the seducing, perhaps she wants the man to pin her down, perhaps she’s one of those women, the one the feminists hate, who love a bit of kink in their sex lives.

Of course, that could all be rubbish, I could be talking out my arse, Dolce and Gabanna might actually be a set of massive rape-loving twats, but that doesn’t seem very likely to me. What it does seem like is they produced a couple of images that are ambiguously provocative and the feminist army got their panties in a massive fucking bunch and, in order to maintain the perpetual victimhood their movement loves so much, cried rape at the top of their voices.

As I mentioned above, I was trying to find articles that were as black-and-white as they come, and I wasn’t disappointed. These are people who are absolutely convinced this advert is sickening, and basically make the implication that anyone who disagrees is a sick fuck.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charlotte-hilton-andersen/dolce-gabbana-says-women_b_547268.html

http://peacehopetrees.tumblr.com/post/14504147327/feministblackboard-dolce-gabbana-this-ad-is

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/raim0007/gwss1001/2007/04/dolce_gabbana_fantasy_rape_ad.html

I don’t have time, space or the energy to go through each of those articles in turn, but they all go down the same route – that advert is gang rape, no matter what you think, no grey areas, no ambiguities, no differing interpretations, nothing. Just a sick campaign that ‘reeks’ of violence against women.

And so, we come to my favourite part of this particular blog, the part where I can talk about the outrageous feminist hypocrisy of complaining about adverts like this. You see, in my research I found 4 more images that were of a controversial, provocative nature, and this time I couldn’t find a single objection:

http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y472/johnsalmonworld/IMG_2681_zps467627ec.jpg

http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y472/johnsalmonworld/IMG_2683_zps06476f0e.jpg

http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y472/johnsalmonworld/IMG_2682_zpsffe8e881.jpg

http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y472/johnsalmonworld/IMG_2680_zps750c8722.jpg

 

First thing to notice in those ads above – the men are a lot more naked than the woman in the ‘gang rape’ picture. In fact, in my very simple Google search of ‘Dolce and Gabbana’ I didn’t find a single advert that featured a completely naked woman, or even a woman in just her underwear, yet there were a great deal of men either completely naked or in just their underwear. I will state here, pretty late in the blog but never mind, that I have no problem with models being photographed in their underwear to promote a fashion company’s clothes, not at all. I have no problem with nudity being used in the way it is above. What I do have a problem with is the disparity in the treatment of the two sexes in those adverts.

See, not only are the men naked in the adverts above, they are being dominated by the women. If I was to use my own logic I could suggest, quite easily, that these men are also choosing to be in this situation, that maybe these are the type of men who like handing over control to their partners, or multiple partners, and letting them be in control. I’d be absolutely right, there’s every chance that that is the case, every chance that these adverts are as kinky as the ‘gang rape’ advert.

But, there are two distinct reasons why I say there aren’t the same:

1) The facial expressions of the women. In these adverts the facial expressions of the women are a lot more violent and stern than the men in the ‘gang rape’ advert. In that advert the woman and the men’s faces are all passive, showing very little emotion. Some of the women in the 4 adverts posted above are looking anything but passive, verging more on the aggressive than anything else which, when coupled with the fact that some of them are holding whips, presents a much more violent impression than anything in the ‘gang rape’ advert.

2) Look at the body positions on the men. While the ‘gang rape’ ad shows the woman thrusting towards the man pinning her down, the above adverts show the men in a much more victimised light, to the point that in two of the adverts at least, the men are seen either cowering or trying to get away.

Again, I’ll reiterate, this could simply be a case of some kinky BDSM sexual activity where the men enjoy being dominated, it’s not unheard of, out of 7billion people on the planet there must be a few of each sex that like to try something a little different than ordinary ‘vanilla’ sex.

But here’s my point, I couldn’t find any objections to the 4 adverts above, whereas I could find pages and pages of stuff dedicated to how sickening, misogynist and pro-violence-against-women the ‘gang rape’ advert was. So, the ambiguous advert with clothed men surrounding another clothed man pinning down a clothed woman is touted as being an absolute black-and-white portrayal and promotion of gang rape, while 4 adverts that show clothed women stripping, whipping, possibly beating and demeaning naked men are out there on the internet with not a whisper to be heard.

Is it becoming even clearer why I think feminism is embroiled in a battle to maintain their perpetual victimhood? Advert that contains numerous interpretations just happens to have one that is considered bad = misogyny, 4 adverts that contain less ambiguous depictions of violence towards naked men = perfectly alright.

“So why don’t you complain?” I hear you shout. Well, considering the attitude society has of domestic violence perpetrated by women towards men, do you think my complaints would have much of an impact? I highly doubt it. If one image that ‘reeks’ of violence towards women is banned, yet 4 adverts that depict violence towards men are barely acknowledged then what hope do I possibly have of making a difference? It’s going to take more than one Englishman with a blog that constantly criticises feminism to make a difference. Feminism is far too ingrained in society for it to be destroyed by one man with a blog. It’ll take an organised movement, one as powerful as the feminists have created, with every piece of logic and information possible, to dismantle feminism.

I thought I’d try a little social experiment regarding the 4 adverts containing naked men. I typed in “Dolce and Gabbana violence towards men” in to Google and this is the result:

http://search.babylon.com/?q=dolce+and+gabbana+violence+towards+men&s=web&as=0&rlz=0&babsrc=HP_ss

Yep, not a single site on the first page of results that deals with female on male violence in their adverts, every single site is about male on female violence and how D&G ads help perpetuate that. Absolute no consideration of the reverse, something that numerous studies have proven to happen on near identical levels.

Yes, I know this particular advert is over 6 years old, but the idea remains, the feminist movement does not like anyone who doesn’t share their views, even if those people happen to be women. A movement that is for ‘equality’ that only seems to be upset when women are depicted badly hardly seems to be a movement for equality at all. Seems to me more like a movement whose only desire is to maintain and control the perpetual victimhood it holds itself in, so as to allow the perpetual cycle of confirmation bias to continue, to infinity and beyond.

I don’t have a problem with the ‘gang rape’ advert, which means I don’t have a problem with the set of 4 adverts containing men. What I do have a problem with is the constant cherry picking by feminists over which adverts offend them most, and the blatant hypocrisy that pervades their movement. When you claim that adverts are objectifying women and ‘reek’ of violence, and then ignore or pass off equally as objectifying and violent images towards men you are a hypocrite, plain and simple. It should come as no surprise that I find feminism to be loaded with hypocrites, only ever seeing the ‘damage’ done to women by ambiguous adverts that may or may not imply a nasty event is about to happen.

You want me to take your movement seriously? Stop having a crying fit every time you see something you don’t like, engage in debates and discussions with people who don’t share your views and, for God’s sake, acknowledge your own hypocrisy when it comes to everyday double standards that affect men and women.

Have I upset you? Good, your tears are delicious!

Victim blaming, the phenomenon that currently sweeps our nation. Apparently, if you get raped, burgled, beaten, car-jacked, assaulted, scammed or any other number of instances, the prevalent idea in western society is to blame the victim. If you get burgled, well it’s your fault for having a house, if you get beaten up, well it’s your fault for walking down the street, if you get raped, well it’s your fault for dressing like a slut. But, hang on a minute. Those first two examples I’ve never actually heard before and, feminists would have you believe, the third is absolutely rampant when it comes to rape cases. But, here’s the kicker, I can honestly say the amount of people I’ve ever heard say something like that to a rape victim is absolutely minimal.

No, this blog isn’t all about rape, it’s about the wider issue of victim blaming, or lack of it, but victim blaming and rape currently go hand in hand. See, feminists hold the monopoly on rape at the moment. They throw the word around like confetti, they make up new ways of being raped (stare rape, telepathic rape, anyone?) and they love reminding everyone how much women are ignored when they are raped. Thing is, like most things with feminists, they only seem to complain when it happens to women. Victim blaming happens everywhere, but it would appear it’s only reprehensible when women are the victims.

A couple of months ago, Youtube user 6oodfella posted this video:

http://youtu.be/ZLhvWT-B-j0

It’s a pretty comprehensive look at the idea and culture of victim blaming and, while I’m not trying to steal his thunder, I do want to touch upon some stories that show just how much of a mess the notion of victim blaming is and how it’s not always as clear cut as some would believe.

I could post an absolute ton of pictures that prove ‘victim blaming’ does happen, but 6oodfella already did a good enough job, so if you want to see how prevalent victim blaming is then go and watch the video.

What I do want to talk about is the idea of ‘victim blaming’ as a concept. The whole notion of blaming the victim is something that shouldn’t be considered, but let’s take a look at what is actually meant when we ‘blame’ the ‘victim’. The definition I found online that most encapsulates this idea is:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/v/victim-blaming/

Notice how it’s very careful to use the words ‘wholly or partly’ responsible. What that suggests, to me, is that, at some level, nobody is ever responsible for anything that happens to them. It leads me to believe that it’s possible for a person to explain away any accident or occurrence as nothing to do with their decisions, and to label anything otherwise as victim blaming. Victim blaming actually promotes a ‘no responsibility’ culture which, in an ideal world, would be perfect, but we aren’t in an ideal world and personal choices and responsibility still needs to be accountable.

But how responsible do we need to be? When it comes to most aspects of personal safety, it would appear we are held responsible for most things, to some degree anyway, except rape. Now, I’m not saying that people ‘deserve’ to be raped or mugged or beaten or whatever, but why does the concept of victim blaming hold such negative connotations. I think it has something to do with the words.

Victim: someone or something that is harmed by an unpleasant event (such as an illness or accident)

Blame: The state of being responsible for a fault or error

So you see, the two words imply that the person who was ‘harmed’ by something ‘unpleasant’ is actually the one ‘responsible’. The thing is, when people ‘victim blame’ they aren’t suggesting that the victim is entirely responsible for the act, they are trying to understand how the situation happened, what caused the event in the first place and how, if at all, it could have been avoided. The term ‘victim blaming’ is an unfortunate combination of words, but the sentiment that lies behind it is noble and worth exploring.

In the following clip by Bill Burr, skip to 2:10. In this particular clip he’s talking about Domestic Violence, but the same logic can be applied to victim blaming.

http://youtu.be/AlvvCYUDHrQ

Any time you say ‘there’s no reason’ it automatically shuts off the conversation; Bill Burr is 100% correct. And here’s the good part, it doesn’t just apply to domestic violence, it applies to any type of violence or event which leaves a victim. If you automatically take the stance that there was absolutely nothing that could be done, that there was no reason for that situation occurring, you cut off all avenues of future prevention, you cut off all chances of discussion and debate.

Why? To stop the victim feeling guilty, perhaps? I’m not sure, maybe deep down there’s a feeling that someone has suffered enough and doesn’t need the events recounted again and again. I can see the point in that, but on the flipside, the reluctance to put one person through that secondary trauma could indirectly cause untold others to share the initial event. By refusing to talk about preventative measures are we not just perpetuating a crime culture? By not accounting for personal safety do we not let criminals commit crime with near impunity?

Let me get this clear, when I talk about ‘victim blaming’, I talk about the concept of self awareness and self protection, not the idea that the person who was victimised is entirely responsible for what happened to them. But that doesn’t mean I don’t think there are some situations that are avoidable if a little bit of common sense is applied. People want equality, they want to be treated like adults, but then they act like children and refuse to hold themselves accountable for their actions.

Having said all that, there are certain campaigns that do actively encourage personal responsibility. You only have to watch 6oodfella’s video to see the myriad of different campaigns promoting the very idea of personal responsibility – don’t leave valuables in sight in your car, don’t leave your doors or windows unlocked, at Christmas don’t leave presents in view of the window. That’s not saying those people deserve to have their cars broken into, or their Christmas presents stolen, but, regardless of how ideal a place you want the world to be, there are some instances where we have to take responsibility.

I don’t want to turn this in to a blog about rape, but it would seem rape, currently, is the only crime we are not allowed to question. I mentioned in my first ever blog the furore around Dr Phil’s tweet asking if it was ok to have sex with a drunken woman. Despite the fact the question actually posed a serious topic that is absolutely ready for interesting, thorough, serious debate the internet blew up and accused him of asking if it was ok to rape a drunken girl. That’s not what he asked, and people know it, but rape hysteria is so rife in our society that any mention of rape and personal responsibility is, as Bill Burr so accurately describes, shut off completely. Not only does this not allow any discourse on the intricacies of the act itself, but it also completely shuts off any discussion on how we can possibly prevent ourselves from getting in to the same situation.

You’ve all seen the feminist slogans – ‘don’t teach women not to get raped, teach men not to rape.’

That is horrendously sexist for two reasons – 1) the assumption that 100% of rapists are men and 100% of victims are female and 2) it absolutely implies that woman are moronic troglodytes who are incapable of looking after themselves. By refusing to enter in to any discussion about rape prevention they perpetuate the two most prevalent rape myths, men can’t help but be rapists, and women can’t leave the house after dark, because apparently that’s the rapist’s favourite time of day!

How many other campaigns advocate ‘don’t teach *insert victim here* not to get *insert event here*, teach *insert criminal here* not to *insert crime here*? Never, there are numerous campaigns out there that advocate safe choices and personal responsibility.

Here are two examples:

http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y472/johnsalmonworld/IMG_2627_zpsbd316891.png

http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y472/johnsalmonworld/IMG_2636_zps414b2f43.png

 

See, the first one is actually telling you to co-operate with the mugger in order to ensure your own safety. Victim blaming much? The second is advising you to keep your house and self safe, and to share the advice with others so they can stay safe as well. Surely the campaigns should be asking people not to mug, and clowns not to enter houses? So why the victim blaming?

One simple reason – it’s common sense to want to keep yourself, your family and your property safe. If someone is that intent on committing a crime, I hardly think a well-intentioned but ultimately misguided advertising campaign focusing on them is going to change their mind too much.

We are constantly bombarded with messages of advice asking us to stay safe, to apply some logic to our surroundings and don’t put ourselves in any situation that may result in a crime being committed. I despise the attitude that some people of that states “I should be able to do *insert horrendously over-exaggerated act here* without the fear of being *insert relative crime here*. The most obvious one being “I should be able to walk down the street naked without the fear of being raped”. Well, in an ideal world that would be absolutely fine, but to apply that amount of deluded naivety and ignorance to the world we live in is not only damaging to your sense of self protection, but damaging to people who are advocating for a level of personal responsibility.

If you walk down the street at midnight in an area that is well known for crime with your iphone out, blaring music, should we wonder why that iphone gets taken off you in a mugging? No, it’s pretty self explanatory, don’t put yourself in a situation where you’re likely to become the victim, don’t allow yourself to fall into a situation where you are not able to protect yourself. If something happens to you and my first question just happens to be one that tries to paint the picture of what lead up to the event, don’t interpret that as me saying it was your fault, interpret that as me wondering how that situation occurred and how I could go about ensuring I don’t fall into the same trap.

So, if other campaigns advocate personal responsibility, logic and common sense (locking doors, keeping valuables out of sight, not walking through rough areas with your phone out) why do the feminists have such a hard time when it comes to rape? I’m not saying people (not just women) deserve to be raped, or that is somehow their fault if they are. Of course it isn’t, rape is the fault of the rapist. What I’m advocating is the self worth of knowing how to protect yourself, how to ensure your sense of protection is not dictated to you by someone who thinks they are doing you a favour. Me telling you you’re a twat for getting so hammered you can’t remember how you got home is not me victim blaming, it is me applying common sense to aid someone who is so obviously without it as to be pathetically underprepared to live in this world.

Victim blaming is the wrong choice of words, I am in no way suggesting it is a person’s fault for being mugged, raped, beaten, etc, what I am saying is that the idealist view of “I should be able to do this…” is just a simple way of trying to do everything you want to do without claiming an iota of personal responsibility. Maybe we just need to change the words?

So, if other campaigns can advocate the, very sensible, idea of taking care of yourself and looking out for others, why do the feminists have such a hard time when it comes to helping people avoid situations in which something nasty or untoward might occur? One simple reason – advocating the idea that there is nothing you can do to protect yourself against violent street crime allows them to play the victim card when someone (yes, generally a woman) falls prey to an unscrupulous societal scumbag. And we all know feminists love playing the victim.

John Salmon – who am I?

Posted: November 17, 2013 in Uncategorized

This is going to be one of the hardest blogs I’ve ever written, it’s not about feminism, or double standards, or rape culture, or victim blaming, or slut shaming, or circumcision, or victimhood or anything else of a similar nature. This one is all about me. It’s about John Salmon, and John Salmon alone. Narcissistic I know, but bear with me. It is a brave man that truly looks inward and explores their own being, their own failings (And I have many) and then puts it out here for all to see.

So, why do it? Why do it on this blog? Why put it out there at all? Because I need to. This blog, the Facebook accounted I created, the personality I have created as a shield for my real life has afforded me more popularity than I ever thought imaginable. I would honestly consider ‘John Salmon’ to be a more successful human being than my real identity. John Salmon has made an impact that I could only dream of replicating with my actual identity.

Please don’t misinterpret this as a cry for sympathy, or a cry for help, I just need somewhere to vent, somewhere to try and figure out how an identity that doesn’t even exist, an identity that is completely made up, has somehow made me feel more ‘real’ than the identity I was born with, the identity I conduct my everyday life with. I’m grateful, really I am, grateful that what I have to say has resonated with people, made them think about things, agreed with me, allowed me into their circle despite the fact I have shared absolutely nothing aside from a few opinions that, for all they know, could be coming from a feminist infiltrator who is taking their praise and running off back to feminist land to be appalled and shocked at the oppression and victimisation of the internet.

I’m not. What’s the point of this, at the moment rather sorry, blog entry? Well, it pretty much boils down to one statement: I’m incredibly lonely. I now have two lives, my ‘real’ life, and the life I created for ‘John Salmon’. Problem is, I consider John Salmon to be an incomplete existence. Nobody knows anything about me except some very broad information, no-one knows what I look like, no-one knows my real name, my real location or anything that may help give away my real identity. It’s the persona I most identify with and it’s a sham, a lie. It’s a cowardly way for me to hide behind some rather controversial views, hiding because I don’t have the conviction or courage to say these things in my real life. I am surrounded by people, in both my lives, who have absolutely no idea who I am, the real me anyway. Take both identities and stick them together, that’s how you get the real me. But I have to split them. I have to take the bits I can’t say in my real life and apply them to John Salmon, and as John Salmon my anonymity and need to stay somewhat under the radar means I can’t share things that define me as an individual. I have two lives, and yet I don’t truly live in either of them.

The end result is someone who doesn’t know which personality they want to live in. Conflicted, confused, completely at odds with the duplicitous existence they’ve created. Who am I? I have absolutely no idea. I love the attention I get as John Salmon, but deep down I know it all means nothing, it all counts for nothing, because John Salmon doesn’t exist. I can stop being John Salmon at any point, return to my real life and pretend Salmon never existed. Go back to living as an extremely frustrated individual just looking for a way to vent, somewhere to go to prove that I wasn’t insane, I wasn’t alone in the views I had. I’ve found that, I’ve found that on so many levels, and my frustration at life, at myself, at society has dwindled to the point of being almost non-existent. But it’s not enough. I don’t want to have to live vicariously through a fake existence. I shouldn’t have to.

This has been eating away at me for days, and it took me a while to figure out what caused it. I think I finally know. To give you some background, I’m an introvert. Look up the definition of ‘introvert’ and there’s my picture. I have 2 extremely close friends, both male, who I love very much. Aside from that, I have a lot of acquaintances, people who I will talk to if I see them out and about, but who I would never think to ring up at a moment’s notice and talk to for an hour. I consider those two friends my best friends. One of them got married earlier in the year. The other one has recently just got engaged. I realised that the only 2 people who I had any time for (aside from my family) were moving on, getting married and progressing with their lives. Yet, here I am, stumbling through life from one week to the next. It finally clicked, the thing I crave most in the entire world, the thing that I both love and hate in equal measure, the thing that, no matter how much I receive, is either not enough or the wrong kind:

Attention.

I needed attention, whilst at the same time absolutely loathing it. I needed someone to validate my views despite the fact I claim to be unwavering in my loyalty to them. You see, John Salmon was not just a way of me expressing the frustrations I was harbouring; it was a way for me to get the attention that I craved, and yet when I got that attention my first thought was to stop writing the blog. Why? I don’t know. I think the fear is, deep down, that someone will disagree with me, just one person, and that will invalidate my entire existence. Everything I think, every thought I have, every single word I write in this blog will mean absolutely nothing. I don’t know if that’s linked to the introverted nature of my being or just the fact that John Salmon is already a sham of an existence. Every blog post, every status, every damn thing I say I’m waiting for someone to come along and tell me I’m right, tell me they agree with me, tell me I have something worthwhile to say, something valid, that my life is not a waste, that it’s not worthless, that the creation of this new persona wasn’t just a narcissistic ego trip to inflate my own sense of being. That wasn’t the intention, quite the opposite actually. The fact I have this duplicitous lifestyle is something that drives me insane, I don’t want to feel this way, I really, really don’t. It makes me feel like some kind of rejected child. As everyone knows, it only takes one person to bring your world crashing down, no matter how many people helped you build it. ‘John Salmon’, as a personality, is no more successful or inspiring than my ordinary life.

This is the dilemma I now have to live with. Do I retreat back to my old life, the life of ignorance and frustration, but live in the ‘real world’ with people I actually see and interact with in person, or do I carry on as John Salmon, and sink further into a life of anonymity and invisibility? I continue to bang my head into a brick wall, which is the very thing I tried to stop by starting this blog. It never ends.