The Named Anonymous

September 2, 2014 3:51 pm
Pakistan's Hidden Shame - 4oD

it-goes-both-ways:

Found it. Only viewable in the UK unless you have proxies. Won’t play if you have adblock.

It’s pretty gut wrenching hearing boys as young as 8 describing the sexual acts done to them, and which they’ve done for food and money, so casually. Some go on to repeat the abuse to others and most of the abusers were victims themselves, further demonstrating the cyclical nature of abuse.

About three quarters of the way through, they try to shoehorn some “oppression of women” explanation in there, despite many people actually being concerned about the safety of any women that might find themselves there. And the fact that male victims who repeat the abuse, tend to target other males, females victims of women target other females, male victims of women target females and vice versa. So a boy abused by a man wouldn’t be likely to abuse women. Then say that the society wants to protect women despite the fact they said they were detested objects. That they have no rights then immediately show an educated woman who was working with the boys. It felt very much like a sort of disclaimer, that they have to throw in a “women affected worse” line in there to justify their focus on male victims.

3:39 pm

it-goes-both-ways:

appledoze said: So basically it was brushing aside the boy victims and painting them as a side effect of the oppression and hatred of women. Because of course even little boys are less important than women when it comes to victimhood.

And when they said that the people didn’t want women in those places because the same might happen to them, and just so happened to mention people’s unwillingness to help the boys, they implied that they would prefer that nearly all children there were repeatedly raped than any woman possibly be in any danger. Even though when they asked the ones doing it, they wanted wives, not sex slaves, they believed it was wrong to do it to women and they also worried for women’s safety if they were there.

5:23 am

it-goes-both-ways:

I was at my partner’s place earlier and there was a programme on about the sexual abuse of boys in Pakistan, it’s rare people give a toss about that so I watched it. There were interviews with some of the boys, the social workers trying to help them and some abusers (oddly enough also abuse victims themselves).

It’s depressing stuff but worth watching, I’ll have a look for it later, if they put it online. One thing really distracted from the message though.

They just had to inject some female victimhood in there, saying women are despised property and the only reason the boys are abused is because there are no women there. Despite the fact that some of the people working at the places that try to help the victims were women, female relatives of the boys being treated remarkably well for the worthless scum they’re supposedly considered, working, educated, not enslaved chained to the kitchen women. But who do they go to to say that women are worthless property? One uneducated, drug addicted child rapist of course, because he’ll have the most accurate reading of the entire culture.

The narrator went on to talk about the protection of women being important and that the people don’t want women in the places where 9 out of 10 male children on the street are raped because they might be victimised themselves. Now why would they care if they hated them so much?

Why would people go through such pains for the protection of detested objects? Would you die to protect a piece of property that you hated? Why do they feel the need to ram this down our throats when they’re talking about young children being raped every day and not getting the treatment they need. At least they could have not immediately contradicted themselves by having a woman who defied that demeaning description in the very next shot talking about how the ones raping the children see it as wrong to rape women but not boys. Maybe it was intentional.

September 1, 2014 5:17 pm
kiwibearsden:

feduptoinfinity:


"Feminist" writer for the Daily Dot and Bustle shamelessly spreading misinformation using #Gamergate and throwing insults when brought any conflicting opinion. Mind you she has over 5,000 followers getting this on their feeds. 

What a compelling argument she makes.

This is essentially the entire Zoe Quinn debacle in one picture from what I can see so far. I keep seeing women against Zoe Quinn calling her out on questionable behavior and people continue to ignore they exist and going “ITS ALL DUDES. NO ONE HAS A PROBLEM WITH IT BUT DUDES.”
Yanno, just like Anita did.

kiwibearsden:

feduptoinfinity:

"Feminist" writer for the Daily Dot and Bustle shamelessly spreading misinformation using #Gamergate and throwing insults when brought any conflicting opinion. Mind you she has over 5,000 followers getting this on their feeds. 

What a compelling argument she makes.

This is essentially the entire Zoe Quinn debacle in one picture from what I can see so far. I keep seeing women against Zoe Quinn calling her out on questionable behavior and people continue to ignore they exist and going “ITS ALL DUDES. NO ONE HAS A PROBLEM WITH IT BUT DUDES.”

Yanno, just like Anita did.

(Source: gamergateharrassment)

August 31, 2014 9:49 pm

parkstargh:

thing one: Zoe Quinn admits to rape (by her definition) and gaming websites say it’s wrong to report on developer’s personal lives, Cards Against Humanity developer gets accused of rape and denies it, but gets endless coverage and criticism from those same gaming websites.

Read More

August 28, 2014 6:36 pm
heroinfriday:

congenitalprogramming:

lisaquestions:

hyena-punk:

nokiaofficial:

scalematecapekind:

howtfdidevrynamegettaken:

truestfeminist:

digital-joker:

I remember this…Chick got caught cheating on her bf so he put the child locks on the car and locked the girl inside with the roaches.

No woman deserves to go through this. I dont care if she was cheating, woman are allowed to express their sexuality and this is basically slut shaming. Her boyfriend was probably awful and abusive anyway.

Man cheats = emotionally abusive swine
Woman cheats = strong woman expressing her sexuality
Got that?

CHEATING IS FUCKING CHEATING. WHEN YOU ARE IN A RELATIONSHIP WITH SOMEONE, YOU DEVOTE YOUR LOVE AND SELF TO THEM AND ONLY THEM. IT’S NOT FUCKING ‘EXPRESSING SEXUALITY.’ IT’S A GODDAMN BETRAYAL OF TRUST NO MATTER WHO THR FUCK YOU ARE.

finally someone said it

Like, yeah cheating is bad. dont do it. but who the fuck thinks this is a valid reaction, like if this happened to me id be fucked up for weeks. It not a ok god damn thing to do to someone for just cheating

I figure the kind of guy who’d lock a woman in a car with hundreds of cockroaches for cheating on him is the kind of guy who’d give a woman a hundred reasons to cheat on him in the first place.
Like, cheating sucks. Intentionally traumatizing people sucks more.

The bolded. Cheating is cheating is cheating but going out of your way to fucking traumatize someone for it is fucking stupid. They cheated on you. Move the fuck on. You’re out here scheming minor supervillain moves on them and shit get your life in order.

I dunno man, this feels like sweet sweet justice. As someone who has cheated and has been cheated on—by different people—I feel like this is an acceptable fuck you to do to someone for emotionally scarring you into having little trust in all relationships. -Liv

"Who would find this acceptable?"  I don’t know.  Who would find cutting off a guy’s dick for cheating acceptable?

heroinfriday:

congenitalprogramming:

lisaquestions:

hyena-punk:

nokiaofficial:

scalematecapekind:

howtfdidevrynamegettaken:

truestfeminist:

digital-joker:

I remember this…

Chick got caught cheating on her bf so he put the child locks on the car and locked the girl inside with the roaches.

No woman deserves to go through this. I dont care if she was cheating, woman are allowed to express their sexuality and this is basically slut shaming. Her boyfriend was probably awful and abusive anyway.

Man cheats = emotionally abusive swine

Woman cheats = strong woman expressing her sexuality

Got that?

CHEATING IS FUCKING CHEATING. WHEN YOU ARE IN A RELATIONSHIP WITH SOMEONE, YOU DEVOTE YOUR LOVE AND SELF TO THEM AND ONLY THEM. IT’S NOT FUCKING ‘EXPRESSING SEXUALITY.’ IT’S A GODDAMN BETRAYAL OF TRUST NO MATTER WHO THR FUCK YOU ARE.

finally someone said it

Like, yeah cheating is bad. dont do it. but who the fuck thinks this is a valid reaction, like if this happened to me id be fucked up for weeks. It not a ok god damn thing to do to someone for just cheating

I figure the kind of guy who’d lock a woman in a car with hundreds of cockroaches for cheating on him is the kind of guy who’d give a woman a hundred reasons to cheat on him in the first place.

Like, cheating sucks. Intentionally traumatizing people sucks more.

The bolded. Cheating is cheating is cheating but going out of your way to fucking traumatize someone for it is fucking stupid. They cheated on you. Move the fuck on. You’re out here scheming minor supervillain moves on them and shit get your life in order.

I dunno man, this feels like sweet sweet justice. As someone who has cheated and has been cheated on—by different people—I feel like this is an acceptable fuck you to do to someone for emotionally scarring you into having little trust in all relationships. -Liv

"Who would find this acceptable?"  I don’t know.  Who would find cutting off a guy’s dick for cheating acceptable?

6:28 pm

it-goes-both-ways:

Dem Bitches Be Crazy - Feminism LOL

Going through chapter 4 of Elizabeth Sheehy’s “Defending Battered Women on Trial”. She’s the law professor who is trying to make it legal for women to kill their male partners if they claim abuse even, as demonstrated by this chapter, if she is the abusive one.

The woman in this case was even known to be extremely violent as testified by all the witnesses, she would beat him in public, persisting until he eventually snapped and fought back. He would have scratches and bruises all over his body from head to toe while she would have bruises from her own drunken clumsiness and his self defence. Despite many witnesses saying she screaming that she was going to kill him, when she actually killed him, she claimed self defence, saying he loaded the gun, gave it to her and told her to shoot him, which she did. Then claimed she thought it was unloaded despite saying she watched him load it and claiming she was defending herself despite saying she didn’t think it was loaded. She, of course, got away with it.

Three months prior to this, another woman got away with murder saying her partner ordered her to shoot him, contradicting all witness accounts. Sheehy even points this out. As well as arguing that the abuse of the man misrepresents battering as being equally available to women and that the idea of men being DV victims is “preposterous”.

6:24 pm

it-goes-both-ways:

flclgur:

it-goes-both-ways:

tosaveoursouls:

claimingmylife:

it-goes-both-ways:

captaindrprofessorsupermcawesome:

LOOK AT HOW WELL THIS IS SOURCED

That aside I need to double check this because I can almost guarentee this is a statistic that has been taken out of context and spun, I WILL REPORT BACK WITH THE NEWS

Also twice the non reciprocal means that women fight back to their abusers and men don’t

It doesn’t mean that women are committing twice the amount of harm

Here, have 286 sources. Happy now?

No? Have 1700 then.

I just can’t bravo

I don’t mean to be insensitive here. But has anyone thought MAYBE the rates are higher because BASICALLY MOST assaults to female go unreported?

How can you possibly have even the slightest inkling of how many crimes go unreported? Why be so disappointed that you have to imagine masses of women being secretly beaten and abused when you see stats like this? If it showed the opposite you’d be lapping it up, or even saying that the number female victims are still not high enough.

This is what real Feminism is about. It’s not about oppressing men to make them feel what women have felt. It’s about not making men feel weak or like a “pussy” by saying that he was beat by abusive female counterpart. It’s about letting men practically don the role of women and not making them feel ashamed.

Either way, abuse victims will often feel like they deserve what they got or that they did something to provoke their spouse. In a fair world abuse victims would never be afraid to speak up.

Being abused is the role of women? Men being abused is not at all new, historically they would be paraded around the town while everyone threw things, jeered and banged pots and pans. While abusive men were punished severely as well. Men were punished either way whoever did the hitting.

What feminism has done is make women only shelters, ban men from the premises, ban male children, heighten paranoia and fear, define bullshit such as “using logic” and “refusing to have sex with her” as domestic violence, protest men’s shelters, come up with hateful laws like VAWA and enforce the entirely inaccurate Duluth model and ensure that men are the ones arrested even when they call about an abusive woman. Feminism has never done a damned thing to help men.

6:23 pm 6:22 pm
barackfuckingobama:

catching-escaped-thoughts:

o4z:

The biggest asshole in cartoon history.

^^^ Like really, do you not have anything to drink at home

he literally lives IN WATER JUST SWALLOW YOU LAZY MOTHERFUCKER

barackfuckingobama:

catching-escaped-thoughts:

o4z:

The biggest asshole in cartoon history.

^^^ Like really, do you not have anything to drink at home

he literally lives IN WATER JUST SWALLOW YOU LAZY MOTHERFUCKER

(Source: holyspongeblog, via featherydinosaur22)

6:22 pm

ferventfox:

tosaveoursouls:

ferventfox:

tosaveoursouls:

claimingmylife:

it-goes-both-ways:

captaindrprofessorsupermcawesome:

LOOK AT HOW WELL THIS IS SOURCED

That aside I need to double check this because I can almost guarentee this is a statistic that has been taken out of context and spun, I WILL REPORT BACK WITH THE NEWS

Also twice the non reciprocal means that women fight back to their abusers and men don’t

It doesn’t mean that women are committing twice the amount of harm

Here, have 286 sources. Happy now?

No? Have 1700 then.

I just can’t bravo

I don’t mean to be insensitive here. But has anyone thought MAYBE the rates are higher because BASICALLY MOST assaults to female go unreported?

You honestly think men report domestic abuse more than women? 

I think there’s more men in this world that would say “this bitch is craaaazy” and report, than women that feel confident enough to stand up for themselves, yes.
I didn’t mean for my comments to come across as a “whoa is us women, we need attention” just stating an opinion/thought.

Then I think you have a very warped view of the situation. For one thing a lot of men say stuff like “bitch is crazy” to flippantly refer to their abuse without admitting it was abuse. People who say stuff like that don’t report. More importantly: Men who call for help in domestic violence situations frequently get arrested. Not to mention that there are basically no resources for abused men. There are practically no shelters, little opportunity for legal recourse and protection, and if there are children involved—good luck getting them out of that household or ever even seeing them again.  This is the kind of shit that happens when men call so much as a  domestic abuse hotline; you really think men are going to be willing to go to the actual authorities? So if you’re going to say something that defies basically everything I know about male ipv victims, I’m gonna need some cold hard facts that say women are less likely to report. 

(via it-goes-both-ways)

6:20 pm

it-goes-both-ways:

Town where entire population is made up of beautiful young women makes appeal for single men

orange-soda-conspiracy:

it-goes-both-ways:

A town where the entire population is made up of young women has made an appeal for single men - but only those willing to live by female rules.

Over 600 women make up the population of Noiva do Cordeiro, southeast Brazil - most aged between 20 and 35.

Although some are married with families, their husbands are made to work away from home, only being allowed to return at weekends.

Sons are sent away when they reach 18 and no other men are permitted to live in the town, which sits in a remote valley 60 miles east of Belo Horizonte.

The settlement dates back to the 1890s, when a young woman and her family were excommunicated from the Catholic church after she was accused of adultery.

Slowly more single women and mother-only families joined the community, and over the decades several attempts by men to intervere in their way of life made them adopt a strictly ‘no male’ policy.

Today, girl power rules in the rural town, with women in charge of every aspect of life - from farming to town planning and even religion.

But while none of the residents of Noiva do Cordeiro would have it any other way, it has left them with just one problem.

One of the women, Nelma Fernandes, 23, admits it’s impossible for the girls - renowned in the region as strikingly beautiful - to find a would-be spouse.

She said: “Here, the only men we single girls meet are either married or related to us, everyone is a cousin. I haven’t kissed a man for a long time.

"We all dream of falling in love and getting married. But we like living here and don’t want to have to leave the town to find a husband.

The lack of eligible batchelors has now led the community’s many single young ladies for make an appeal for interested men - but only those willing to adapt to living in a women’s world.

Ms Fernandes said: “We’d like to get to know men who would leave their own lives and come to be a part of ours.

"But first they need to agree to do what we say and live according to our rules."

Picturesque Noiva do Cordeiro grew up in the rolling hills near Belo Vale, in Minas Gerais state, after founder Maria Senhorinha de Lima was branded an adulterer after leaving a man she had been forced to marry.

She was chased out of town in 1891 after the Catholic church excommunicated her and the next five generations of her family. 

Shunned by the local population, she and other women who subsequently went to live with them were vilified as loose women and prostitutes, causing them to isolate themselves from the outside world.

In 1940, an evangelical pastor, Anisio Pereira, took one of the women, aged 16, to be his wife and founded a church in the growing community.

However, he proceeded to impose strict puritanical rules, banning them from drinking alcohol, listening to music, cutting their hair or using any type of contraceptive.

When Anisio died in 1995, the women decided never again to let a man dictate how they should live.

One of the first things they did was to dismantle the male-biased organised religion he had set up.

Another woman, Rosalee Fernandes, 49, said: “We have God in our hearts. But we don’t think we need to go to church, get married in front of a priest or baptise our children. These are rules made up by men.”

It is not the only part of life in the town which has been given a uniquely feminine touch.

Ms Fernandes said: “There are lots of things that women do better than men. Our town is prettier, more organised, and far more harmonious than if men were in charge.

"When problems or disputes arise, we resolve them in a woman’s way, trying to find consensus rather than conflict.

"We share everything, even the land we work on. Nobody competes with anyone here. It’s all for one, and one for all.

"The whole town came together recently to help buy a huge widescreen TV for our community centre so we can all watch soap operas together.

"And there’s always time to stop and gossip, try on each other’s clothes and do each other’s hair and nails."

Sounds torturous.

Drop everything, abandon your lives, live ours and do everything we say. And exile your sons once they reach raping age. It’s wrong for one man to tell us how to live so we’ll force any males to live and do as we say. It’s wrong for one man to tell us what we can’t enjoy so we won’t allow competition of any kind. It’s wrong for one man to think himself superior to us, women are superior. It’s wrong for one man to set restrictive rules for us to live by so we’ll control every single aspect of the life of any male we tolerate.

And they say a matriarchy would be better than a patriarchy. Strange how in a patriarchal society, the protection of women is paramount, men are sent off to die in wars they have no choice in, men take on dangerous and unpleasant jobs to take care of their families, women can strip a man of everything he owns and holds dear including his children and just to really rub it in, falsely accuse him of rape and abuse to get him sent to prison.

Yet they see this as hatred of women and worship of men. Once again, they respond to perceived hatred with genuine hatred. This entire society is like an abusive relationship, controlling, restrictive, belittling and scornful. Not every woman likes gossip, soaps and telling people how to live. Many would also be pretty damned bored by being unable to compete in any way. If they don’t like any kind of maleness why have any men at all.

You forgot the bit where they say “come be a part of our family” yet they also expect men to only be a part of the town and see their children two out of seven days a week at best.

They literally see men as nothing but mobile sperm banks…

Oh well at least the movie version was amusing.

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

Oddly enough that was the exact film that sprung to mind when I read this as well.

Wonder if they keep bees.

5:00 am

eee-in:

forthosewhowilllisten:

fluthermucken-the-muffin-man:

But yea, those darned men and their spread legs are oppressing you.

When I would use the bus in high school, I would do this because I didn’t want some creep sitting next to me. That’s something both my parents taught me to do; always sit by yourself unless you have a friend with you. It’s not being a “seat hog,” it’s being safe. And if you’re really going to get that anal about it then just ask them to put the bag down.

So your parents taught you to be a complete asshole? 

If you don’t move your purse out of the way i’ll move it for you and trust me I’ve had to do it many times on the busses in my city

They’re usually pretty packed and usually there’s girls who just blatantly take up the seat next to them with their giant ass purses and when you ask them if you could sit down they look at you like you like  ”ewww god gross go away” and shake their head and then that’s  usually when I just sit down anyways or move their bags for them, because there’s no way I’m paying 2.55 to stand for half an hour on my way to work you rude ass bitch

(Source: fluthermucken-the-fluffasaurus, via heroinfriday)

August 27, 2014 5:44 pm

it-goes-both-ways:

angelussatani:

Intuitively this makes sense, but people really need to start sourcing these kinds if infographics. We need to start holding each other to a higher standard of evidence.

Luckily someone’s listed 78 of them.

4:28 pm

it-goes-both-ways:

goinglightsandsirens:

my dash keeps suggesting i follow this stupid ass blog?

it goes both ways. go shove your own fist up your ass.

p.s” men choose the highest paid specialization” bitch please.

Why would I want to do that?

Do you believe men have no volition? Or that women are too stupid and weak to make their own decisions? You lot are quite willing to believe in gender differences when (erroneously) saying that nearly all abuse and rape is man on woman, willing to exclude men from daycare jobs because people think they will rape the babies, but you can’t even comprehend the idea that men and women might just generally prefer different careers overall.

Why is it you lot associate anything women do with weakness or inferiority? That says more about you than me.

Also, sources.