A Letter to Salon.Com
One does not write-- ahem!-- comments at Salon.Com. No, one writes "letters", forsooth! Classy, you know! That is how Salon.Com rolls, yes indeedy!
So yeah, like, anyways, I wrote me one o' them-thar. . . letters! Just like a regular classy dude with rhetorical discipline and stuff, right?
But wait a minute, I guess I better send you to this particular Salon article, because I just know that all you fine folks in CF reader land want to read it too. (No, I'm not talking about feminist readers; they're not fine folks! I'm talking about all you other folks!)
All right, here's the Salon article at ya:
Is Female-On-Male Violence on the Rise?
And here is Fidelbogen's. . erm . . . letter about that article:
To answer the rhetorical query which the title of the article poses at the outset: NO. Female-on-male violence is not "on the rise". Quite honestly, I don't believe it has altered much, one way or the other, since the DV moral panic campaign was initiated roughly a third of a century ago.All right folks, so that is how it's done, okay? And I even took the trouble to register as a Salon member, in order to write this! So now it is your turn; what are you waiting for? Have yourself a workout, and build some swing in your punch! Biff! Pow! Socko!
This piece was clearly written from a feminist perspective, and throughout its length it consistently ducks-and-dodges, bobs-and-weaves, and fancy-dances this way and that in order to evade the looming question of Feminist Guilt.
Unbiased statistics have long suggested that men and women are about equally to blame for domestic violence, but feminist campaigners have consistently ignored such figures in favor of more shoddy data which props up the official paradigm: that men are violent perpetrators who initiate 95% of all DV for the purpose of "patriarchal power and control".
It is a paradigm which shows ominous signs of cracking and crumbling under the slow pressure of non-feminist publicity over the course of years. That matters are reaching a critical point is eloquently attested by the very existence of the present article, which seems crafted for the purpose of damage control. A shift in strategic thinking is apparent -- from ignoring contrary information or denying the truth of it, to allowing (regretfully) that it just might be true, yet avoiding the massive political implications that such an admission ought to raise for discussion.
And the author accomplishes said avoidance by a truckload of rhetorical waffling, shuffling, and noodling which is intended to sound "thoughtful" and "reflective". Sigh! It is painful to read, and even more painful to write about.
But to return to the beginning: female-on-male violence is nothing new, and no worse than it ever was. The only new thing nowadays, is that the world is finally waking up to this, and that those responsible for propagating the lop-sided myth of "male violence" must soon take the stand in their own defense, and face the music.
Just be sure to include, somewhere in your missive, the phrase "feminist guilt". Extra points, if you can work in the phrase "feminist subjectivism". But always remember to keep it classy for the Salon crowd, okay?
I would encourage you to preserve these letters, and paste them in the comments here at CF!
The best part of this, by the way, is reading ALL of the . . letters. One by one. Plenty of those Salon readers were mighty harsh upon the po' little authoress Lynn Harris, mighty harsh! It is one of the cutest things, to hear all those people who would never dream of calling themselves MRAs, sounding more and more like MRAs all the time!
Do you suppose the day is not far off when we can nonchalantly sidle up to those people, throw a populistic arm around their shoulders, and insinuatingly say to them "just between us MRAs. . . "?
And then have fun watching them squirm??
Addendum: The following pertains: