47 thoughts on “‘God Can Use This Man’

  1. dav

    why do the news want to talk to trump supporters, they’re angry, racist idiots and are more likely to attack the reporter for asking questions, because asking questions is respectful to ‘murica or the 2nd amendment or donald’s wall or something…

    1. Serval

      They’re not the news, they’re the noose.
      It’s good for viewing figures, which is good for advertising revenue.

  2. DubLoony

    Oh. dear. God.
    Just, like… wow…

    Really feel sorry for the poor CNN host. Remarkable composure from the guy.

  3. Gers

    Despite being a loony she made her point very well on the last bit. The all thing around that secret recording is ridiculous. Women may not understand nor believe it but that talk goes on all the time.

    1. Nigel

      Y’know, if a feminist said this just a couple of short days ago she’d be a man-hater swamped by snarling sneering #notallmen types. Now it’s #notallmen types saying hey, yes, we all do it all the time! Hah, you think women don’t understand this, though. Good one. Mansplain mantalk some more.

      1. Clampers Outside!

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NotAllMen It has different meanings depending on context, and the user.
        Originally a positive, it was turned by feminism into something of ridicule. Nice piece here in Time on it, by a feminist – http://time.com/79357/not-all-men-a-brief-history-of-every-dudes-favorite-argument/

        The crux of the argument made in Time is that feminists see the ‘notallmen’ line as men trying to takeover a debate / conversation by, as feminists claim, placing men in the centre. Which is just a dubious defensive claim by feminists who just don’t want men in the conversation at all.
        So, they claim it doesn’t help their cause, key being doesn’t help ‘their’ one sided view, so it is used to shut down conversation or make opposing views seem unreasonable. Of course, there are men who will use it defensively to close a conversation too.
        The peculiar thing in all of it, is that feminism has a phrase that means the same thing but is acceptable to feminists, the claim that ‘the patriarchy hurts men too’.

        The difference largely being that many people who might use it do not believe the ‘patriarchy’ theory applies in western cultures, at least not to the extent claimed by feminism.
        On the other side (from Wiki link) India Times writer Sumeet Keswani writes that the statement “does not serve to derail the feminism movement; it seeks to draw the line between feminism and misandry.”

        Again, it simply is dependent on who is using it. Now, in context here, as you have used it, it is a derogatory term used to shut out any conversation that goes against your view. Here, you have used it as an expression of intolerance of any attempt at an opposing view from a ‘type’ of person.

        No debate can ever be handled evenly when any side throws around shut-down phrases. Something both sides of the conversation need to stop.

        Just a though on that. Nigel, this is not an attack on you, I’m just making a couple of points about that particular phrase.

        IMO – Gers comment is stupid, especially the ‘go on all the time’ bit. Maybe it’s a reflection of Gers choice of friends or persons Gers hangs out with… I don’t know…. I don’t even know if Gers is a man or a woman :) Sorry Gers!

        1. Nigel

          Hmm, when the phrase came into what-passes-for-popular usage, it generally came across to me as an attack – the flip-side of calling feminists man-hating. More importantly that’s how it came across to the women at whom it was directed, and perhaps their thoughts on the matter shouldn’t be dismissed.

          Feminists are charged with ‘shutting down conversation’s all the time online. Feminists are often quite relentlessly targeted by trolls using time-and-energy-and-spirit-wasting tactics – gish-galloping, sea-lioning to name but two, aside entirely from the routine death and rape threats and other assorted forms of abuse and harassment. They will co-opt any otherwise reasonable and worthy points for these tactics. How much time and energy should feminists devote to distinguishing the reasonable from the trolls? (The answer, obviously, is however much time and energy they want to, if any – we’re not the boss of them.)

          If feminists choose not to engage in conversations with individuals who use phrases that may, mistakenly, signal them as time-and-energy-wasting trolls, well, is that the fault of the feminists, or the fault of the trolls? Surely there is some onus on those individuals to inform themselves of how these phrases are being used against feminist in entirely aggressive ways, and to be aware of that dynamic and to not pretend it isn’t relevant to them. You can blame the feminists for these constraints but that’s pretty much what the trolls want. Sooner or later the non-feminists who want to genuinely have these conversations are going to have to acknowledge the thousands of sea-lions in the room and deal with the fact they they are more of an obstacle to that conversation than any number of recalcitrant feminists, by several orders of magnitude.

          1. Clampers Outside!

            Reasoned response, one I’m much in agreement with. Put simply, there are trolls on both sides.
            Recognising “sea-lions” in the room is just as difficult to get at, as is separating out misandrist discourse based in feminist ideology so inherent in the modern strain of gender-feminism.

            At least, I think, we are makin’ an effort to move away from that here.

        2. Niamh

          ‘The crux of the argument made in Time is that feminists see the ‘notallmen’ line as men trying to takeover a debate / conversation by, as feminists claim, placing men in the centre. Which is just a dubious defensive claim by feminists who just don’t want men in the conversation at all.’

          Why is this a dubious and defensive claim?

          I have been sexually assaulted in public on numerous occasions, especially when I was young and wearing a school uniform. Based on this, friends’ experience, and a broader conversation, I believe this fact relates to a culture of male entitlement and aggression and not to any random coincidence.

          But when I voice this, I get ‘not all men’. What the hell does that add? I didn’t say ALL men, I said CULTURAL NORM. By jumping in with this bit of snide defensiveness, the not-all-menner appears to want me to apologise for responding to my multiple assaults and anecdotal experiences by reasoning sociologically. It turns ‘all men’ (i.e., him) into my ‘victim’ because I am proposing to point our patriarchal reflexes in our culture which make me reasonably wary of being assaulted when I go out.

          I mean, when Black Lives Matters is up for discussion, do you feel personally offended as a white person? Does the fact that ‘not all white people’ are racist have anything to add to a discussion about institutional racism?

          Of course it’s a shutting-down tactic. FFS.

          As a feminist I do not want men excluded from the conversation, but I am not willing to allow their contributions to a conversation about male-on-female assault and harassment in the street to be valued above mine. If you’d listen, concede I may – amazingly – be telling the truth, concede there may be a problem, take seriously the structural persistence of sexism, then we’d be ‘conversing’. You don’t want to have that conversation because you don’t want to concede to the fact that you may have a structural privilege and not *actually* be one of life’s victims to the degree you’d like to imagine you are.

          There is no such thing as institutional or structural misandry. That is called prejudice. It’s problematic, but it’s not structural.

        3. Nigel

          @Niamh – in focusing on the online debate aspects, I completely blew past the fact that all of this relates more directly to women’s experiences of physical sexual harassment as an everyday occurrence.

          I was groped once – more than once, actually, – four or five times in my whole life – by men and women, but only the one time really stays with me and bothers me. I was young, in a crowded area, and it was two women who verbally and physically assaulted me. It was horrible, but I had no idea how to deal with it. What I don’t do is assume that my experience somehow invalidates or eclipses or competes with the experiences of women. I know better now that my experience constitutes barely a fraction of what many women put up with. That doesn’t make it less upsetting for me, nor does it make it any sort of a counter-argument to feminism.

          (It’s possible there are feminists who would dismiss or belittle or respond aggressively to experiences like mine – if so I’ve never encountered them nor do I want to.)

          I bet a lot of guys have had similar experiences at some point in their lives. I bet if they thought about it, and thought about what it must be like to have to live with that constantly, they might react with more compassion, understanding and anger at stories like Niamh’s, and stop challenging feminists, and start challenging men.

          1. Clampers Outside!

            @Nigel To “stop challenging feminists” is to assume they are always right. All ideologies should be challenged, and not left to do or say or propagandise as they please.
            In any society, to assume an ideology is always right is detrimental to it’s development. To assume an ideology goes unchallenged is essentially saying there is only one view that is right.

          2. Nigel

            This is assuming that feminism goes unchallenged somehow. Feminism is besieged by challengers, and most of them are ugly and spurious and misogynist. To fail to take this into account when raising reasonable critiques is a bit like challenging the justice system of people defending a city under daily bombardment and constant attack. You may be right, but that’s not going to stop the bombs falling.

          3. Dόn Pídgéόní

            I’m pretty sure that anyone, feminist or not, saying sexual assault is wrong is always right. But good attempt at distraction.

    2. ReproBertie

      Where exactly does this talk go on all the time? I’ve been a male and around males for over 40 years. In all that time I’ve never heard another man recommend or brag about sexual assault.

      1. realPolithicks

        Exactly, men who engage in this type of talk and behavior try to justify themselves by claiming that “everyone does it”. We don’t!

    3. Dόn Pídgéόní

      You talk about grabbing and kissing women against their will all the time? Bit rapey innit?

      1. Brother Barnabas

        No, we don’t. I’ve never had such a conversation nor heard anyone make any comment like that. And if someone did make a comment, it wouldn’t be laughed or ignored – they’d be called out on it. And that’s not me being sanctimonious – most of my friends are a$$holes.

  4. Ultan

    Stop the Press! Crazy person says something crazy. WTF is wrong with news now that this loon is given a chance to speak? All about the ratings it seems…

    1. bisted

      ‘…Trump support hurts christian credibility’…I think that credibility was hurt long before Trump came along…round about the time of the talking snake…

      1. some old queen

        Maybe so but internally they are in crisis.

        It is near impossible for them to reconcile their version of ‘family values’ with a three times married fornicator who sexually assaults women by grabbing their privates.

  5. Caroline™

    GOP is imploding… Trump is goading them with abandon. How I would love to see Paul Ryan crack and just go full Sparta.

  6. jeremy kyle

    Almost as baffling as the a meme I saw today saying: “If American women are so outraged by Donald Trump’s words who the hell bought 80 millions copies of 50 Shades of Grey?”

  7. Daisy Chainsaw

    FFS! Because reading badly written BDSM spanky vvanky fanfic is exactly the same as condoning Trump! I’d hate to be caught reading Silence of the Lambs!

Comments are closed.