Is the Head of the IMF a Sex Criminal?

@spendius,

The writers you quote are forgotten five minutes after they are read.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

You are the one making the ridiculous assumption that to provide all people, and not just women, with the protections of law, whether it's to protect their bodies, or their property, or their money, or anything else, is to "treat them like children". Rather a simplistic view of the law you have, don't you think?

It might be simplistic but seat belts in cars are mandatory here to protect people from their own driving and are no different in principle to the straps that hold babies in prams.

Not only do you women seek protection you seek it no matter how risky to yourselves your behaviour is. That you pretend that your behaviour is not risky is contradicted by the very facts you like to quote. You want to be "sexy" and if it stimulates a man to lose his wits you want the cops to intervene. And if it doesn't stimulate a man to lose his wits it isn't sexy. It's sexy at the level of a 15 golf handicap. It's like bungee jumping under the supervision of the Health and Safety Executive. Trapeze work with a safety net. Football with crash helmets and outlandish body padding.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Men are not the only ones who point this out either, as many conservative women say the same thing.

ff dismissed that argument hawk by simply saying she wasn't interested in the Midge Decter book I mentioned. Neat eh? Another simple variation on the Ignore function. Not being interested.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Not only do you women seek protection you seek it no matter how risky to yourselves your behaviour is. That you pretend that your behaviour is not risky is contradicted by the very facts you like to quote. You want to be "sexy" and if it stimulates a man to lose his wits you want the cops to intervene. And if it doesn't stimulate a man to lose his wits it isn't sexy. It's sexy at the level of a 15 golf handicap. It's like bungee jumping under the supervision of the Health and Safety Executive. Trapeze work with a safety net. Football with crash helmets and outlandish body padding.

And of course mentioning the long history of women toying with men for thrills and/or vengeance is not something that we are supposed to remember, or mention....that would be hate speach according to FF, being true does not factor in for her.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

DSK: you judge a man, not a symbol

Dominique Strauss-Kahn is not a symbol but a singular person, with a name and a surname.Even those who, impressed by the indictment and the evidence distilled in the press, deny him the presumption of innocence, should give him, it would still be the very least, the presumption of individuality....

And this also applies to the complainant itself reduced to an abstraction, and disembodied exploited shamelessly by those who profess to be moved by his fate....

You continue to post articles that either you do not read, do not interpret correctly, or which actually contradict points you are trying to make.

DSK is not a symbol. He is not all men. He is not all men accused of sexual assaults. He is one particular individual--a 62 year old married Frenchman who is charged with violent felonies--forcibly sexually assaulting a maid at the Sofitel hotel, as well as unlawfully imprisoning her in his hotel suite.

The complainant is not a symbol. She is not all women who allege they are sexually assaulted. She is one particular individual--a 32 year old Muslim single mother, who is an immigrant from Guinea, and who is employed as a hotel maid. And she has alleged that she was unlawfully imprisoned and forcibly sexually assaulted by DSK after she entered what she believed was an unoccupied hotel suite to perform her cleaning duties.

But, despite the article you posted, you continue to turn them both in symbols--simply so you can rail on, in your usual manner, about unfair treatment of men (meaning only white heterosexual men in your book), your opposition to sexual assault laws (including the laws pertaining to forcible sexual assaults), the deviousness and deceptiveness of all women, and your usual claptrap about "feminists" being behind all things you feel personally aggrieved about. None of which says anything meaningful about the two specific individuals who are at the center of this legal case involving forcible sexual assault, or even about the case itself.

He simply becomes a martyr for your various causes, another man whose current life situation you can exploit to further your personal agenda. And she, simply because she is a woman, must be regarded with extreme suspicion and scrutinized as carefully as possible, and her credibility assailed as much as possible, because you have told us that all women are devious and deceitful. So, she becomes all women, who you freely describe in over-generalized negative stereotypes, which, of course, isn't hate speech, because everyone knows all women (presumably of all ages and backgrounds and cultures all over the globe) behave exactly as you choose to characterize them. So, you're exploiting her too, to justify your own agenda of spreading anti-female hate speech..oops...your own agenda of spreading "the truth" about women.

Hawkeye, these two people aren't symbols of anything. They are two very real, very individual human beings, who are both involved in a criminal case in NYC which has upended both of their lives. Stop exploiting both of them. Stop using them as an excuse to promote your various causes and as bodies you can step on so you can climb on your soapbox.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

You continue to post articles that either you do not read, do not interpret correctly, or which actually contradict points you are trying to make.

No, you continue to not pay attention...I have been very clear that my main goal is to have a conversation, that I have an open mind, and that I desire to look at anything and everything that titillates the brain cells on this subject and bring such fodder into the conversation. You should never assume that I agree with something that I link, only after I say that I agree should you do so.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

I have been very clear that my main goal is to have a conversation

If continually expressing hostility toward women is your idea of "conversation", then enjoy your conversation with Spendius and BillRM. Bigotry loves company.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

If continually expressing hostility toward women is your idea of "conversation", then enjoy your conversation with Spendius and BillRM. Bigotry loves company.

Between multiple threads over the last two years we have had a pretty darn good conversation, and it has been much more inclusive than such conversations tend to be in real life, where PC policing tends to quickly destroy any attempt to talk openly and honestly on the subject of gender relations and power dynamics in such. I understand that the inclusion of ideas that you dont agree with is a problem for you.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

You want to be "sexy" and if it stimulates a man to lose his wits you want the cops to intervene.

I'm sure the maid had "being sexy" on her mind when she entered what she believed was an empty hotel suite to clean it.

You seem not to understand the "assault" part of "sexual assault"--even when it is a physically forcible assault of an unwilling individual--which is the charge against DSK--a violent felony.

You're damn right that a woman should want the cops to intervene in such a situation. And the NYPD should be commended for doing just that.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

we have had a pretty darn good conversation, and it has been much more inclusive than such conversations tend to be in real life, where PC policing tends to quickly destroy any attempt to talk openly and honestly

No, you are just saying what I said before. The anonymity of the internet replaces the white sheets and hoods that some people need to wear in real life when they engage in hate speech and negative stereotypical characterizations of all people in certain racial, religious, ethnic... and gender groups. Your idea of "open and honest talk" is the same kind of thing that is found on KKK and Aryan Nation Web sites--they think they're spreading the "truth" too. Perhaps you think that because you are negatively stereotyping women--all women, of course-- that lends you some respectability and sets you apart from those other bigots who mainly focus on race or religion. If you believe that, you've been sitting under your white sheet too long, and listening only to your equally bigoted buddies in this thread. Tell us again how you feel victimized because of your Aryan genitalia...

2 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

No, you are just saying what I said before. The anonymity of the internet replaces the white sheets and hoods that some people need to wear in real life when they engage in hate speech and negative stereotypical characterizations of all people in certain racial, religious, ethnic... and gender groups. Your idea of "open and honest talk" is the same kind of thing that is found on KKK and Aryan Nation Web sites

There is no difference between my methods and that of the feminists, or the gay rights pressure groups, or the immigration pressure groups or.......if you feel the need to fit me with a white sheet then you best get cracking making a whole lot of them., and dont forget to make one for yourself.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

There is no difference between my methods and that of the feminists, or the gay rights pressure groups, or the immigration pressure groups or.......if you feel the need to fit me with a white sheet then you best get cracking making a whole lot of them., and dont forget to make one for yourself.

Don't confuse an advocacy group with the white sheet wearers. I find no hate speech, or negative over-generalized stereotypes, of any entire group, on the National Organization for Women Web site, nor have I heard such negative characterizations of entire groups from gay advocacy groups, or the pro-immigrant groups.

You bash women constantly, all women, describing them, as an entire group, in consistently negative overgeneralized stereotypes--just the way the KKK and Aryan Nation types bash and negatively stereotype blacks, and Jews, and gays, and immigrants, and anyone else they feel is trying to infringe on their white Christian prerogatives and entitlements, and their view of the way things "should be"--and they share your anti-government views as well, and they also purport to be telling "the truth" free of PC constraints. And, let's face it, Hawkeye, your alleged advocacy for men includes only white heterosexual men (the good Aryan stock), and even out of that group, you'd probably exclude the ones who don't agree with you, the same way you attack other male posters who don't agree with you, generally by casting aspersions on their masculinity.

You're no advocate for men, or men's rights, which is why you never gain male support for your views at A2K beyond 2 or 3 other posters, and the 3 or 4 of you always wind up talking only to each other and egging each other on. And, in this thread, the solidarity of your tiny group seems held together by your mutual hostility toward women which you all express at the slightest opportunity.

When you attempt to characterize an entire group, like women, in relentlessly over-generalized negative stereotypes, that in no way could apply to the entire global female population, you have definitely earned your credentials as a full fledged bigot. And you love the anonymity of the internet because you can dump on women, and blacks, and whoever else you choose to demean, in a way you could never dare to do in real life. If the white sheet fits, wear it. It was tailor-made for you.

And, from the comfort of your white sheet/internet anonymity, you foolishly and arrogantly boast of how you would freely disregard or violate the "unfair" sexual assault laws if you wanted to, rather grandiously declaring that such views, and such actions, would somehow put you on equal footing with Martin Luther King, Jr., a comparison so ludicrous it boggles the mind. Meanwhile, DSK sits wearing his electonic moniter with an armed guard watching over him. I don't think he'd agree with you right now.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

Don't confuse an advocacy group with the white sheet wearers. I find no hate speech, or negative over-generalized stereotypes, of any entire group, on the National Organization for Women Web site, nor have I heard such negative characterizations of entire groups from gay advocacy groups, or the pro-immigrant groups

I am sure that according to you that when you come around here claiming that we should assume that since most of Congress has been traditionally made up of white men we can legitimately assume that the interest of all other genders and races have not been looked after, and when you peddle your outrageous claims that one out of four college women are raped by men, and when you put up story after story of an old lady being raped by a man or a make cop raping, that you are not conducting hate speech. But let something be said to the effect that women are not as pure as the driven snow and then all of the sudden we have a civil rights violation taking place, according to you. Let someone speak against the interests of women and there you are claiming that so and so should not be listened to because they are a hater.

I certainly believe that you are self aware enough to see the double standards that you claim in the benefit of your chosen people, in support of you arguments. You only hope that those who are listening to you dont figure out your game, how little there is there when you start pointing to logic and reason and decency.

1 Reply

@firefly,

The National Organization for Women is an obvious candidate to be compared to the KKK. I'm not a member of any organisation.

The sheer existence of the NOW is polarising. It's a club men can't join. It's in opposition to men. A gender group. The fact that you say it doesn't express hate towards men is simply your subjective word choice.

Quote:

In 1880, Mrs. H. Griswold wrote in a letter to Susan B. Anthony: "Words fail to convey the bitter hatred I have for the foul demagogues who would take from me the freedom they claim for themselves." In 1909, Emma Goldman wrote "A New Declaration of Independence," in which she declared the self-evident truth that all human beings "irrespective of race, color, or sex" are born with equal rights.

That's an entry at the top of the NOW's web page. "Bitter hatred". I assume Mrs Griswold hadn't been getting all her own way.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

It's a club men can't join. It's in opposition to men. A gender group. The fact that you say it doesn't express hate towards men is simply your subjective word choice.

I was a member in good standing in the 70s when the ERA was being debated and only quit when I found that the local branch was not interested at all in aiding a woman who was being beaten by her husband.

So I assume that males can be members to this day.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

The anonymity of the internet replaces the white sheets and hoods that some people need to wear in real life when they engage in hate speech and negative stereotypical characterizations of all people in certain racial, religious, ethnic... and gender groups. Your idea of "open and honest talk" is the same kind of thing that is found on KKK and Aryan Nation Web sites--they think they're spreading the "truth" too. Perhaps you think that because you are negatively stereotyping women--all women, of course--

Sorry Firefly you are not all women and your outlook on life is not share by all women and an attack on your positions taken here is not an attack on all women.

In fact I would wager some real money that you own personal life, that unlike most of us you will not share, have very little in common with the majority of women in the US.

Women in fact fit the same bell curve as men as far as being either honorable good citizens or evil worthless humans.

In my area we just had a worthless example of womankind who was found guilt of trying to hired a hit man to kill her new human for $$$$$ and the woman judge gave her 20 years.

Here is the same woman pretending to be upset when the police lie to her and told her that her plot to kill her husband had work

Now the question who is the worthless human being in the case of DSK and the maid is still to me a very open question.

The story as so far released of the maid indicate in my opinion that she is more likely to be the worthless one instead of DSK.

Like the wife in the video my guess is that she is going for the $$$$$$$ but unlike the wife was bright enough to had gotten the state working for her.

1 Reply

Too bad that the woman did not charge Copperfield with sexual assault in New York instead of an area of the country where they investigate first and then decide to arrest or not arrest the man otherwise he might had needed to paid her off.

The police and the FBI look into the charges against Copperfield for two years not an hour or two.

For the record the civil suit was drop against Copperfield also after she was found trying to shake another man down.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

The sheer existence of the NOW is polarising. It's a club men can't join. It's in opposition to men. A gender group. The fact that you say it doesn't express hate towards men is simply your subjective word choice.

You obviously know absolutely nothing about the National Organization for Women since every one of your statements is false.

Men have always been welcome in now, one of the founders of NOW, and its first vice-president, was Richard Graham.

NOW is currently the largest feminist activist organization in the United States, and membership is open to anyone who wishes to join.

It is definitely not in opposition to men--it supports many issues from which men, as well as women, benefit. And NOW has never expressed hatred toward men.

Quote:

That's an entry at the top of the NOW's web page. "Bitter hatred". I assume Mrs Griswold hadn't been getting all her own way.

That quote you posted was from 1880--long, long before NOW was founded. And it expresses no hatred toward men as a group--it refers to to "demagogues", elected officials, at a time when the government was denying women the right to vote. The fact you would choose this quote, to justify your contention that the current members of NOW have hatred of men, or function "in opposition to men" shows just how far you will go in your attempts to smear women--all women.

Try actually learning something about NOW.
http://www.now.org/

Again, your statements reflect the bigotry I pointed out to Hawkeye. You freely made extremely negative stereotypical comments about the leading U.S. feminist organization, with 500, 000 contributing members, painting them all as a group of man-haters who are "in opposition to men". So, half a million supporting NOW members (which includes men as well as women) are all man-haters? Can you support that statement?

Over-generalized highly negative stereotypes of women are at the heart of sexism, and sexism is most definitely a form of bigotry--just as over-generalized highly negative stereotypes of blacks underlies racism, and over-generalized highly negative stereotypes of Jews underlies anti-Semitism.

And, in the case of women, the over-generalized highly negative stereotypes of women (deceitful, manipulative, devious, etc.), which have repeatedly been presented in this thread by you, and Hawkeye, and BillRM, statements which characterized half the world's population in extremely negative terms, are bigotry in action. Try talking about all blacks, or all Asians, or all Christians, in the same terms that have been used about all women as a group--deceitful, manipulative, devious, out for revenge, etc. and see how that sounds to you.

3 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

Hawkeye, and BillRM, statements which characterized half the world's population in extremely negative terms, are bigotry in action. Try talking about all blacks, or all Asians, or all Christians, in the same terms that have been used about all women as a group--deceitful, manipulative, devious, out for revenge, etc. and see how that sounds to you.

Sorry dear but you do have a nerve after portraying men as rapists in waiting who need posters threatening them in order not to rape and them claiming falsely that we are doing the same toward women as you had been doing toward men.

For myself I think that there are just as many evil women in the world as evil men and that because of that fact men lives are routinely being ruin by false charges by this small subset of women.

Women who are rarely punish for such misdeeds that are every bit as bad as men raping women.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

You obviously know absolutely nothing about the National Organization for Women since every one of your statements is false.

I however know about this organization as a former member and ran into how they do not care about helping women out as individuals.

The then chairwoman of half the state of Florida for NOW promising me aid for a woman being beaten by her husband at a time when the local police did not care but never doing so.

Just putting me and others off who had contact her for help.

0 Replies

Is the Head of the IMF a Sex Criminal?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know